Wednesday, November 30, 2005
God’s Word for Reformed Catholics – the Collect for Advent II
There is no better statement of the Reformed Catholic (Church of England & Anglican Protestant) approach and submission to the Bible as the Word of God written than the prayer composed for the Advent season by Archbishop Cranmer in the late 1540s. It is found in all authentic editions of The Book of [the] Common Prayer, beginning with the first edition of 1549, as the Collect for the Second Sunday in Advent. Let us take it part by part:
Blessed Lord, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel” cried Zechariah (Luke 1:68) and Paul wrote, “Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:3). Here we address God as “the Lord,” the ultimate “I am who I am,” the Lord of all being and the fountain of all goodness, wisdom and power.
Who hast caused all holy Scripture to be written for our learning; Paul wrote, “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning” (Romans 15:4) and, “All these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they were written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Corinthians 10:11).
Here, by careful use of the relative clause, we recall reverently before God what we have been taught concerning the use of the Scriptures, that though written centuries ago, they were written (by inspiration and through God’s omniscience) for our practical use today. They exist for our learning, or our instruction in Faith and Morals. So we read the Scriptures in the humble confidence that God has foreseen our needs and will meet them as we receive his written Word.
Grant that we may in such wise hear them, Since we know why the Scriptures exist we ask God, in his mercy and grace, to place us in a position where we can truly profit from their existence and content, as the Word of God written and translated into our language. The verb “Grant” contains not only the theme of petition but also of submission to God, the Lord. And we ask that we may receive their content in such a way and fashion that the reception will be to our true edification. “Hearing” is the first way in which we receive the oracles of God, as they are read in the church services of Morning and Evening Prayer, in the Order for Holy Communion, and in Family Prayers.
Read, mark and inwardly digest them, Hearing the oracles is but the beginning of receiving them for as we hear them we can also read them, and when alone we can just read them. The purpose of both hearing and reading them (done at the same time or separately) is that we may mark, that is pay careful attention to, what we hear and read concerning God and his salvation in Jesus Christ. Marking, paying careful attention, leads to learning and understanding, and to being lodged in the memory and heart – “Thy Word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee” [Psalm 119:11]. This whole exercise may be called meditation for it is the route appointed by God whereby his Word goes from the written page into our inmost souls. Merely to hear or merely to read the Bible is not enough; we are called dutifully and humbly to employ the means necessary to allow the Word of God to enter into our lives. We need to have both the spiritual appetite and the spiritual digestion in place to come to the experience of the Psalmist who declared: “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth” [Psalm 119:103].
That by patience, and comfort of thy holy Word, Here we begin a specific application to the Advent Season, when we look for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus in glory even as we celebrate his Nativity in Bethlehem as the Son of God incarnate. St Paul wrote, “that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4), that is hope of that Second Coming and of the redemption of our bodies and life in glory. We need to bear in mind that the comfort and strengthening of the Scriptures particularly comes to those who are patient!
We may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, The Christian hope is a blessed hope as St Paul told Titus: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). And having addressed God as the “Blessed Lord”, we now celebrate the “blessed hope” which he alone provides for us (if we were using Latin the first of God would be Benedictus and the second of his gift would be beatus).
Thus we ask God to help us rightly to use the Holy Scriptures as a means of preparing for the Second Advent and of life together with Christ in glory.
Which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. As the invocation of this Collect (to “Blessed Lord”) is unique in The Book of Common Prayer, so the conclusion is a very significant variation on the usual ending of these short prayers – “through Jesus Christ…” Instead of the proposition “through” we use “in” because the Christian hope is not merely through Jesus the Mediator but it is actually all bound up within him as our Prophet, Priest and King. In fact it is, “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” as St Paul told the Colossians (1:27). This Hope keeps us steadfast not only in Advent but throughout the whole Church Year.
Amen. So be it, O LORD, the Blessed One and blessed be thy kingdom now and always, even unto ages of ages.
Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we in such wise hear them, read, mark and inwardly digest them, that by patience, and comfort of they holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which though hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 2:24 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
The doctrinal basis of the “Anglican Communion Network” : Is a new doctrinal statement required?
Since it is a voluntary organization, made up of dioceses, parishes and persons, who already belong to an ecclesial body, the Episcopal Church [ECUSA], the Network decided to distinguish itself within that Church, by having its own statement of faith and vocation. In fact, because it came into being in a crisis situation it felt the need to specify wherein it is different from other bodies that use the names of “Episcopal” and “Anglican” in North America. The crisis was set in motion by actions in the ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada which introduced innovatory doctrine and practice in sexual relations into these two Provinces of the Anglican Communion. In the ECUSA a divorced man, living in a same-sex partnership with another man, was consecrated as a bishop; and in Canada same-sex couples were given services of blessing on their union.
The “Confession and Calling of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes” agreed in 2004 begins with a preamble wherein the crisis is described as “a threat to historic Faith and Order that defines”. Then follow the three sections of the document: 1. Stewards of a Trust (i.e., of the Gospel and the Mystery of Faith); 2. [God’s call to be] Trustworthy in Obedience and Communion; & 3. [The need for] Repentance, Reconciliation, Reform & Renewal. Many paragraphs begin, “We confess, hold and bear witness before God…” which form of words reminds us of the old Continental European style of confessing the faith -- “We believe, teach and confess…” Alongside the Statement, verses from the Bible are supplied as proof-texts of the assertions being made.
I will now offer some [critical] comments upon the document in the form it appears on the official website of The Network (I say this as there may be another edition somewhere else).
It reads in such way as to give the impression that the crisis caused by the introduction of the homosexual agenda into the churches is the greatest crisis to face North American Anglicanism in modern times. And it is able to do so because the presence of an active homosexual bishop within the ECUSA is so offensive both to many American social conservatives and, oversees, to many African bishops for whom any form of homosexual practice is both socially and biblically offensive. Further, its citing of the Barmen Declaration from Germany against the Nazi ideology and policy adds to the impression of the unique gravity of this North American crisis. (It is unique, I suggest, only in that it is the latest of series of innovations, each one building, as it were, on the success of the earlier ones.)- It provides the impression that its author(s) are more at home in the world of Karl Barth and a modern, warm neo-orthodoxy, and the approach to the Bible from this school of thought, than they are in the world of the standard Anglican divines and of traditional Anglican forms of statement.
- The author(s) is/are well aware of recent writing in official reports from the Anglican Communion (e.g., the Virginia Report) wherein the actual reality of the communion in sacred things and fellowship amongst the provinces is seen as in some ways participating in and reflecting the actual, ineffable communion within the Blessed, Holy, and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I regard this attempt to link the communion of Churches with the Holy Trinity as a dangerous form of theologizing. The commitment to the Communion of Churches must be based on common Formularies not on the attempt to use the internal life of God the Holy Trinity as a basis!
- Though there is reference to our “common historical formularies, including the sixteenth and seventeenth century authorized Book of Common Prayer and Thirty-Nine Articles” there is no anchoring of these in the life and history of the Anglican Way in North America, either in the USA or in Canada. The first American authorized edition of the Book of Common Prayer was that of 1789 and of The Articles, was 1801. (Note that that there was also The Ordinal, not mentioned by the “Confession….”) Thus no claims are made for the orthodoxy of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA from the 1780s through to the present; and, significantly, there is no facing of the absolutely important question of the authority of the historic Formularies within the ECUSA (formerly PECUSA), that is of the classic BCP, Ordinal and Articles? One asks: Are they seen as authoritative by The Network? Or is the Network of the same mind as the official ECUSA which in 1976/79 abandoned the historic formularies and replaced them with the content of the 1979 Prayer Book, which belongs to a wholly different form of Anglican worship, doctrine, polity and discipline (and from this form has grown the fruit of the present crisis!)?
- Though there is a commitment in the Confession (at II.4) to the “ideal” of Christian marriage as between a man and a woman, there is no recognition at all that the laxity of marital discipline in the ECUSA, including within the dioceses of The Network, with regard to the marriage of divorcees in church (not to mention the cohabitation of many church members, a widespread commitment to a hedonist view of marriage where self-fulfillment is primary, procreation being seen as optional and so on) has actually paved the way for the entry of the homosexual agenda. Though there is perhaps no direct causal connection there is no doubt that serial monogamy with its related phenomena opened the door and created the climate for the homosexual activists to press their claimed rights.
- Further, there is no acceptance of the impact that the ordination of women (with its major support from the doctrine of human rights) had on opening doors for further innovations, especially when put in terms of rights for minorities or those previously left out.
- Also, there is no recognition that the Bible is interpreted by The Network differently with regard to the ordination of women and the re-marriage of divorcees, than it is with regard to homosexual practice. In the latter case, the use is basic and straightforward – the Bible condemns sodomy, therefore it is wrong in all cases. But in the former, ways are devised to get around the clear meaning of Bible verses and to find sophisticated means to neutralize them so as to allow the innovation. Which method of interpretation is favored by The Network?
- Though there are statements of penitence and sorrow for where the ECUSA has arrived doctrinally and morally, there is no sorrow expressed for the actual and specific sharing of the Network bishops in the serious innovations in the life of the PECUSA/ECUSA since World War II. The sorrow and penitence are too general to have real meaning and effect.
- The impression is given that if there is a major U-turn by the ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada in terms of the present crisis then there is a real possibility of a return to an acceptable reality. This may be so in Canada which has still in place the Solemn Declaration concerning the historic Formularies but in the USA the historic Formularies disappeared in 1979 and have not yet returned and will only return if the Network works hard to achieve this. And of course merely having the right doctrine in place in not enough; there must be worship and witness to go with it!
PROPOSAL
In conclusion, I would suggest that this present Confession be seen as having a limited life and having now served its basic purpose, and that it be replaced by one that is truly Anglican in style and content and has a certain parallel nature to the doctrinal basis of the major African Provinces of the Communion of Churches:
(a) which wholly commits to the authority of Scripture and the historic Formularies – classic BCP, Ordinal and Articles, and
(b) contains a modern form of the Articles, addressed to the problems and heresies of today, to become a guide for Anglicans through the current mess (as were the original Articles in the 16th century).
[See also the related essay on “The A-C Network: a reflection upon “Network” below]
petertoon@msn.com November 29, 2005
posted by John at 2:38 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 1 comments
The A-C Network – an intriguing title!
Reflections upon what is a Network
My intention is to reflect upon the expression “the Network” as used in the phrase. “the Anglican Communion Network.” This meditation may serve to clarify for people in the USA and elsewhere what is this new society/organization and where it can or will go.
It is claimed by insiders that the formation of the Network was originally suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, in a private meeting in London with two Americans. Initial plans for the Convocation were laid at a gathering of “mainstream” Anglican leaders (including four Primates) in London in November 2003. A Memorandum of Agreement came out of this meeting and was ultimately signed by thirteen bishops of the Episcopal Church. The Memorandum stated the intention of these bishops to begin taking steps toward organizing a network of “confessing” dioceses and congregations within the Episcopal Church [ECUSA]. The signing of the memorandum by a bishop did not indicate that his diocese had joined the network. Since then, a total of ten dioceses — Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, Rio Grande, San Joaquin, South Carolina and Springfield — have ratified their affiliation.
The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes was officially launched on January 20, 2004, at the Network’s Organizing Convocation held at Christ Church, Plano, Texas. That meeting included representatives from 12 Episcopal dioceses, as well as persons from geographic regions and one non-geographic area that were designated as convocations. The gathering unanimously adopted a Structural Charter and affirmed a Theological Charter. The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan was elected Moderator of the new Network and will serve for a three-year term. The Organizing Convocation also elected a 12-member Steering Committee composed of persons from across the country. The Network was given financial help to get started and to continue by the American Anglican Council, and the two organizations remain close but distinct.
We do not know what Rowan Williams had in mind when he suggested “a Network” and we do not know whether what he understood as a network was the same model in the mind of Americans present with him, the very men who brought back the message that he had suggested a network. The word is used today in a variety of ways, for example:
- An openwork fabric or structure in which cords, threads, or wires cross at regular intervals.
- Something resembling an openwork fabric or structure in form or concept, especially:
- A system of lines or channels that cross or interconnect: a network of railroads.
- A complex, interconnected group or system: an espionage network.
- An extended group of people with similar interests or concerns who interact and remain in informal contact for mutual assistance or support.
- A chain of radio or television broadcasting stations linked by wire or microwave relay.
Then there is the growing use of “network” by international companies to describe the relation to each other of offices, plants, distribution centers, factories and the like around the world.
In most uses of this word in modern discourse, the network is a primary thing and describes the relation to each other of primary realities – e.g., the railroads that cut across the country, or the spies in a country or region, or the various physical manifestations of an international company.
However, in the religious use being considered here, the network is very much a secondary, dependent and supportive thing. The dioceses are first of all dioceses of the Episcopal Church and the parishes are first of all parts of actual dioceses. Their membership of the Network is voluntary and can be ceased at any time. Further, though persons may feel a stronger level of moral commitment to the Network than to the original ecclesial structure/institution, the fact of the matter is that their primary existence derives not from the Network but from the ECUSA. This remains true even if it is conceded that the Network is planning (though there is no evidence for this yet) to become a Province of the Anglican Communion.
Certainly the country is organized into geographical regions and non-geographical interest groups (e.g., the Forward in Faith NA) and there are local officers (who assume ecclesial titles such as “Very Rev.” !) but again this is all voluntary and all who participate have a primary residence in and legal connection to a unit of the Episcopal Church of the USA or other ecclesial body. Such organization is not new, for not a few voluntary societies have had and still have diocesan or geographical chapters across the country and they are also “networks.”
What all this means is that this specific Network is not the visible Church as such (it is not a Province with dioceses and dioceses with parishes); but, it is to be likened to a missionary society or a voluntary, not for profit, organization, or an advocacy group for a special kind of Anglicanism, or a reform movement working for changes in the Anglican Way, or something else – or all of these.
Now the Network’s full title is, “The Anglican Communion Network.” Obviously this is intended to make a statement that, as half of the provinces of the Anglican Communion are not in eucharistic or doctrinal communion with the ECUSA, this group within the ECUSA wants to maintain full communion with those provinces which have anathematized the ECUSA. Yet, we must remember that communion is wholly dependent on the gift of the bishops, dioceses and provinces outside of the ECUSA and cannot be caused by the will of the Network membership, for as Episcopalians they are, as it were, under the ban.
The oddity of the title may be seen by reflecting upon the reality that being part of the ECUSA the actual membership of the Network is actually within the very Province with which a majority of Anglican Primates and Provinces are in impaired or broken communion. So the Network membership relies on the promises of Primates from the Global South that it (i.e., they as “the orthodox”) are excluded from the blanket condemnation of the ECUSA for its innovations and refusal to repent of them. Thus the use of “Anglican Communion” functions as a statement of intent and as an expression of hope for the membership of the Network. Yet it is a “loose” expression with flexible content.
To conclude this short meditation.
When you have a voluntary society, even one which has the verbal support of important people at home and overseas, you always run the risk (in a culture where private opinion is highly rated and where doing one’s own thing is celebrated) of losing momentum, of dividing into various interest and pressure groups, and of being taken over by external or internal stronger forces. Right now, the Network appears to have a variety of goals and purposes, all of which appear honorable and noble; but unless it has a clearly stated supreme goal that is seen as worthy of sacrificing for, a clear commitment doctrinally and morally to the full Anglican Way, and unless its leadership actually walks the walk as well as talks the talk right now, it will (as I have said before) probably, like the Episcopal Synod of the early 1980s fail in its declared vocation. The only clear goal that would take genuine sacrifice and wisdom, and that I can think of, is the creation of a new, orthodox province of the Anglican Communion on American soil – a province which would include (to use the unfortunate noun preferred by the Network) not only the Network but also the present diaspora of Anglican jurisdictions outside the present ECUSA and official Anglican Communion of Churches.
(see also the related essay on the Doctrinal Basis of the Network above)
petertoon@msn.com November 29, 2005
posted by John at 2:34 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Monday, November 28, 2005
Patriarchy: Inextricably part of God’s revelation or merely the package in which it comes?
The contents of the Bible (when read in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) are saturated with patriarchy (literally, the rule of fathers). God, the LORD, is pre-eminently “the Father” in the New Testament and the great heroes of faith and the covenant of grace of the first book of the Bible are patriarchs – e.g., Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus chose only men to be his apostles; and the apostles ordained only men as presbyters (elders) and bishops (shepherds) in the churches they founded. In his Mere Christianity, Professor C.S. Lewis saw the “headship” of the father in the family as part of basic Christian doctrine and ethics.
If patriarchy is writ large in the Bible (not to mention being writ large in The Book of Common Prayer [1662] and Protestant Confessions of the Reformation era), why do these facts not genuinely bother and trouble modern American evangelical readers of the Bible, who claim that the Bible is “God’s Word written”? It would appear that they should be troubled because they are committed to equality of the sexes not only before God (which the NT certainly proclaims) but also for equality of opportunity, work and leadership in family, the world and the church (which the OT and NT do not affirm). In other words, they deny patriarchy in certain important, practical aspects; but, nevertheless, they proclaim the authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, which contain patriarchy as a major ingredient. How can this be? How can they (by implication) proclaim one thing and then deny its requirements in practice?
The answer would seem to be that they are so much a part of the modern world of civil and human rights and of therapeutic approaches to faith, things which are also a part of religion in their churches, that they are not really challenged by the way that patriarchy is inextricably intertwined into the biblical narrative. They just do not see it there and so there is no problem to face. Why? There are two or three possible answers.
First of all, they tend to use versions/paraphrases of the Bible translated into English using the method known as dynamic equivalency. This has the effect of removing the teeth of patriarchy as it provides not a literal translation of the original text but an approximation of it in modern terms (e.g., “brethren” becomes “sisters and brothers” & “Blessed is the Man…” becomes “Happy are they…”).
Secondly, they are told by evangelical experts on the Bible, that the patriarchy is part of ancient society and culture and is not part of the essential Word of God; rather, it is the package in which the Word comes and was the means graciously used at the time by God when the revelation was originally given. So, for example, the appointment only of men as apostles and elders was simply because women at that time did not do such things and, furthermore, they were involved in child-minding (after all, safe birth control only arrived in the second half of the 20th century!). In modern times, with all the advances in science, technology, anthropology and the social and behavioral sciences, women are in a very different position than they were in Biblical times –even early 20th century times and this the God of heaven surely knows.
Then, of course, there is the tendency in all of us to choose from what is on offer before us that which is acceptable or pleasing to us. This is part of our inherent self-preservation and selfishness. So, if we are tied into a home-life, educational system and culture that insist on the full rights of women in employment and leadership, and we regard all this as what should be, even ought to be, then we assume that God also approves of the status quo. And if HE approves then His Word will surely not say otherwise and when we read it we do not expect it to say anything but that which we have come to see as His way through our experience in the modern world. (This is an important point worth pondering!)
But there is one area where Evangelicals keep traces of patriarchy and that is in the addressing of God as “Father”. They see it as the term Jesus used and therefore one which they should use as his disciples.
So it would seem to be the case that those (e.g., the Evangelicals in the ELCA, ECUSA and AMiA) who proclaim loudest the final authority of the Bible for faith and conduct are yet are unable to see much of the content of the Bible, because of the types of spectacles they use in reading it and the blinkers that their commitment to modern cultural norms causes them to wear. “Headship” of the male is for most if not all only a talking point; it is not a practical doctrine in family or church as the empirical evidence of the latter makes more than clear.
Cross References
I would suggest that there is much the same mindset at work when it comes to the acceptance of the right of divorced persons to have a Christian service of Holy Matrimony in church or conducted according to the rites of the church. We live in a divorce culture and we are so used to serial monogamy that we read the Bible without seeing that if (and it is a big if) remarriage after divorce is actually permitted by Jesus (and thus approved by God) it is only in a limited area and thus involving only a few persons – not multitudes. The themes of chastity, and “one man and one women as one flesh for life” are noticed but not emphasized (except as an ideal, which is different from a standard). So here again the message of the Bible is missed or avoided through either inability to see or the lack of will to see.
However, and this is a big however, a different mindset is at work when it comes to the rights of homosexual persons of the same sex to form a covenanted union and receive a church blessing. This is condemned strongly and loudly – to put it minimally -- by most Evangelicals and done so by using the clear biblical texts against sodomy in the way they were used in ancient times. That is, no allowances are made as they are for women’s rights and for the rights of divorcees. The Bible as it was read by the Fathers, the Reformers and the Revivalists is used to denounce the homosexual agenda as of the devil and sinful before God. No allowance is made for the claim that the covenanted union of homosexual persons is a new phenomenon, is part of modern civil rights and justice, and that the Bible does not even address it as such.
I am puzzled by all this. I am not defending homosexual practice and neither am I attacking women in leadership in society and church. I am asking questions about what seems to me to be an odd situation.
Maybe some evangelicals who fit into the description above will tell us how they square up their use of the Bible for doctrine and morality.
petertoon@msn.com November 28, 2005
posted by John at 8:38 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Sunday, November 27, 2005
A D V E N T
The Christian season of Advent (Latin, adventus, “Coming”) runs from the fourth Sunday before Christmas until the eve of Christmas. It is also the beginning of the Christian Year.
One way of thinking about its purpose and meaning is to take each letter of the word, a-d-v-e-n-t, and let it represent a theme or aspect of this season. So let us try this method.
A – Arrival
During the season of Advent the Church of Christ joins the remnant of Israel (such as Simeon & Anna) through liturgy in preparing for the Arrival of the Messiah, the Son of David & the Son of God, even Jesus, Son of Mary. Further, the Church joins Israel in listening to John the Baptist, who prepared the way of the Messiah.
Also, during the season of Advent the Church of Christ as the Bride of Christ looks for his Return to earth, his Arrival as the Lord of lords and King of kings to raise the dead, judge the nations and inaugurate the kingdom of God.
So the Church prays on Advent III
O Lord Jesu Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee: Grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries may likewise turn so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world, we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.
D -- Devotion
The four weeks of Advent provide the possibility of a period of intense and deep Devotion both in the public liturgy of the Church and in personal times of prayer and meditation. This consecration to walking with God in humility and obedience is summed up in the Collect for the last of the four Sundays:
O LORD, raise up (we pray thee) thy power, and come among us, and with great might succour us; that whereas, through our sins and wickedness, we are sore let and hindered in running the race that is set before us, thy bountiful grace and mercy may speedily help and deliver us; through the satisfaction of thy Son our Lord, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be honour and glory, world without end. Amen.
The Collect is addressed to God, the Father, and it is an earnest request that he will gather up his power and descend to his people (by the Holy Ghost) in order to help, succour and sustain them in the race they are running in their earthly pilgrimage towards the goal & fullness of the kingdom of heaven (see Hebrews 12:1).
In making this petition, God’s people recognize that due to their sins of omission and commission they have failed to run in God’s grace as gracefully and swiftly as they are called to do and ought to have done. Thus they look to the Father to provide them through his Son and by his Spirit, and in grace and mercy, the help they need. In particular they look to the “satisfaction of thy Son”, to his perfect obedience of the Father in his life and in his death, as the basis for asking for divine mercy and assistance (i.e., to his active and passive obedience).
If God’s people are to live as those who expect the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, then they need not only to watch and pray but also to live as the obedient and faithful servants of God, engaged daily in his service and running the race that is set before them. This requires true Devotion!
V. Volition (the act of willing or resolving)
God is merciful and gives us grace but we have to be willing to receive that grace and to commit ourselves to his will and purpose. The Devotion of Advent requires definition Volition! But this we prayed for in the week before Advent: “Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people…”
The season of Advent may be viewed as a short Lent as a time when strict discipline over the body through Fasting is one means of deepening awareness of God and devotion to him. The colour for this season, like Lent, is purple pointing to asceticism and the words of the Advent Collect, “Give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness” also suggest the need for discipline & Fasting. Further, it is possible for four weeks to omit “Gloria in Excelsis” from the Eucharist as a sign of liturgical asceticism – but to do this without developing the interior Devotion of asceticism is to miss out!
Yet Volition, the commitment of the will resolved to do what God requires and to please him, is the real thing here! That is, the will as it is graciously turned towards the Lord to obey him and to do his bidding.
E – Expectancy
As the righteous remnant in Israel waited for the Messiah in hopeful expectancy, so Christian worshippers in the Liturgy throughout Advent grow in expectancy for the arrival of the Son of God Incarnate. And their expectancy is joyfully fulfilled at the first service of Christmas as either they hear the words of the angel first spoken to the shepherds: “To you is born this day in the city of David, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord,” or the majestic words of John 1, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth…”
Further, liturgically Expectancy is communicated by the great “O’s” used during the last week of Advent.
O WISDOM, that camest out of the mouth of the Most High, reaching from one end to another, firmly and gently ordering all things: Come and teach us the way of understanding.
O ADONAI, Captain of the house of Israel, who didst appear to Moses in the flame of the burning bush, and gavest him the law on Sinai: Come and deliver us with thine outsretched arm.
O ROOT OF JESSE, who standest for an ensign of the people, before whom kings shall shut their mouths, to whom the nations shall seek: Come and deliver us and tarry not.
O KEY OF DAVID, Sceptre of the house of Israel, who openest and no man shutteth, and shuttest and not man openeth; Come and bring forth out of the prison-house him that is bound.
O DAY-SPRING FROM ON HIGH, Brightness of Eternal Light, and Sun of righteousness: Come and enlighten those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death.
O KING OF NATIONS, thou for whom they long, the Cornerstone that makest them both one: Come and save thy creatures whom thou didst fashion from the dust of the earth.
O EMMANUEL, our King and Lawgiver, the Desire of all nations and their Saviour: Come and save us, O Lord our God.
N – Narrative
The Scripture passages, the Bible narrative, read, heard and pondered during Advent are most important. In the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer, the Book of Isaiah the Prophet is prominent and is read extensively throughout the four weeks as the Old Testament Lesson. In this book, not only are there many passages addressed to ancient Israel but there are also prophecies that look into the future to proclaim the arrival of the Messiah, the nature of his kingdom, his exaltation through suffering, and the triumph of his cause.
The Anglican Collect for Advent II refers to this relation to Holy Scripture:
Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark ,learn and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
T – Thanksgiving
Though there is a strong element of penitence accompanying the fasting and asceticism in Advent, there is a stronger element of Thanksgiving! For God is praised and thanked for his saving deeds and his inspired words recorded in the Old Testament, all of which point to their climax in the arrival of the Messiah, the Saviour, who came to “fulfil the Law and the Prophets.” There is celebration of God’s mighty salvation experienced by the Israelites and there is anticipation of the even mightier salvation wrought in the Lord Jesus Christ.
And of course the meaning of the word, “Eucharist”, is “Thanksgiving” and thus in the Sacrament each week there is profound thanksgiving offered to the Father through the Son and with the Holy Spirit.
The Advent Collect to be used throughout the four weeks
Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
petertoon@msn.com
www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928
www.anglicanmarketplace.com
thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
posted by John at 8:34 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Report from Peter Toon November 23rd 2005
Thanks for your best wishes and prayers for my bracytherapy.
I am now back home drinking gallons of water and putting ice-packs on the bruised parts of my body where the long needles went in to deliver 125 seeds.
Naturally I feel tired but the professor told me that they managed to get the seeds where they wanted them and they counted it a success. These expensive little seeds begin immediately to release their energy but one really feels it in several weeks time and the life of these seeds is about 6 months.
I have been given a Letter to present at the security at airports etc to explain why I set off the alarms.
THANKSGIVING, USA style, tomorrow, will not be for me a time of special eating but eating a little and drinking a lot of water – not wine!
I have two ladies to look after me and drive me where I need to go, like to the Library for a few books!
Again thanks for your interest and your prayers
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 4:59 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 1 comments
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Women's Ordination Book Available Online...
My book on the ordination of women from 1990, Let Women be Women, Gracewing, is now on line:
http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Issues/womenord.htm
--Peter Toon
posted by John at 3:33 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Are we as “orthodox” Episcopalians complicit in the errors of the “revisionists”?
(This is my last discussion starter until after Thanksgiving! Thanks for your patience. I appreciate your visits to the Blog at the PBS website and your comments sent to me by e mail; from December lst it is possible that there will be in place an opportunity for comments from you to be placed on the Blog at the website at www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928)
------------------------
A thoughtful person who cares for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Way wrote to me yesterday (Nov 19) and stated:
I do think several of the pieces you've sent out in recent days are right on the mark -- and I imagine have infuriated some on the "orthodox" side.This person summarized succinctly what a reasonably large number of people, from bishops to vestry members, has written to tell me over the last week since I wrote my first evaluation of the American Anglican scene, after returning from the “Hope and a Future Conference, Nov 10-12” in Pittsburgh.
We are so much happier when we are blaming all our ills on the Griswolds, Spongs and Robinsons of the world; we are filled with righteous indignation when someone suggests that we ourselves are complicit in the same errors and heresies that afflict them.
Looking back, I think that the highlights of the Conference for me were the exhortations by the two African Archbishops and the talk by the famous Rick Warren. On a personal note, I did not realize that Rick Warren knew me; but he took the time after the Conference to write to me and thank me for various books of mine he had read and to state he missed seeing me. I felt obliged to explain to him in a kindly manner that I am on a slightly (!) different wavelength to the leaders of The Network, in that I think that they are not acting sufficiently decisively in reforming worship, doctrine or discipline and are too wedded to the 1979 prayer book as their Formulary, when it is such a deeply flawed book, and certainly not worthy of the adjective “orthodox.”
What strikes me, sometimes quite forcibly, is that all of us who are directly or indirectly connected to the Episcopal Church, whether we regard ourselves as orthodox, conservative, traditional or whatever else, actually share in its apostate spirit and condition. At one level, this is so simply by belonging as clergy and laity, by using its Liturgy (as, to my horror and surprise, did the Conference including the REC, APA etc!) and sharing in its various agencies and provisions. Thus we need to cover ourselves, as it were, figuratively but spiritually in sackcloth and ashes regularly in penitence. And until there is a new Province based on impeccable worship, doctrine and discipline this penitence will need to continue – unless, miracle of miracle, there is a massive change and amazing U-turn in the ECUSA.
And we need to be penitent not only because of this general inescapable sharing in the corporate reality that is the ECUSA Province, but also, as I have pointed out on many occasions, because we actually share in and strengthen some of its innovations on a daily basis. Amazing but true! These are just as serious, if not more so, than the innovations with regard to homosexuality. I have pointed out many times what these are – e.g., the falsehood before God and man in the statement that the 1979 prayer Book is truly an edition of the real and true Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican tradition and way; the actual rejection of the historic Anglican Formularies which came with the adoption of the 1979 book; the consecration of women as bishops; the lack of any discipline with regard to the remarriage of divorcees in church; the mandating of women’s ordination as an article of faith for officers; and so on. The blessing of same-sex couples is merely one in a long line of innovations, and though very serious, is nothing like as serious as compared with the rejection of the historic Anglican Formularies by the General Convention of 1976/79.
It is easy for any of us to attack “the revisionists” and their notorious bishops who have inspired the moves into one innovation after another. Such activity may enable us to pretend and fool ourselves that we are “the orthodox” who both believe and practice what is right before God in obedience to Jesus Christ as Lord. However, the truth is that we are miserable sinners to whom much light has been given but in whom our wills are apparently in bondage to the Episcopal ethos and innovations [sin?] and thus are not yet truly free to reject them and seek to love and serve God with joy in a “purpose-driven life” and in a “purpose-driven church [new province]” – to quote Rick Warren – to the greater glory of God and the edification of the Church and the increase of the kingdom of God on earth.
Thank God meanwhile that we can take holy refuge within “the communion of saints” and the “Church invisible” of the total elect of God from all space and time!
petertoon@msn.com November 20, 2005
posted by John at 3:25 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Liturgical Freedom, Anglican humanity come of age?
From submission to control in parish life
A discussion starter
Episcopalians of the USA seem to have forgotten that what bound the dioceses of the Protestant Episcopal Church together from the eighteenth well into the twentieth century was a common constitution, with a common liturgy (the Book of Common Prayer in its editions of 1789, 1892 & 1928), a common set of ordination rites (printed and bound with the BCP), and a common confession of faith (in the Creeds, Catechism and Articles of Religion, printed and bound with the BCP). True enough there were different schools or theological emphasis and churchmanship from Latitudinarian to Anglo-Catholic, but generally speaking, and despite a civil war, there was unity in comprehensiveness because of the use of a common liturgy and common formularies.
Clergy felt duty bound by their ordination vows to use the services from the Prayer Book and these only. So a visitor making the rounds would expect and hear the same service everywhere but of course with differences in music, ceremonial and preaching. And what was true in the USA was also true in Canada and Britain and throughout the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations, where Anglican provinces and churches were found.
The point to note is that the bishops and clergy took it as normal and as a duty to God and Church to submit to the use of the printed, set liturgy and in doing so they saw this submission and usage as a distinguishing mark of being Episcopalian or Anglican.
Regettably, there was a revolution in Liturgy within Anglican Provinces of the West/North in the 1970s and it followed bad advice given by the Lambeth Conference of 1968. They all began separately within their own autonomy and by their own liturgical commissions to produce “alternative services” in “modern style and structure” and also in “contemporary language”. Eventually these all looked alike but were by no means identical in content and size! So by the 1980s the Church of England and other western Provinces had for use the classic Book of Common Prayer and alongside it a much thicker book containing a variety of alternative forms for all the basic services of the Church. Bishops urged parishes to use the new in preference to the old! (The ECUSA was more radical for it abandoned the classic BCP and had only a Book of Varied services which it dishonestly named the BCP and forced it on many unwilling parishes! – and since 1979 it has produced various sets of further services to add to the variety.)
Recently, most of these initial services have been revised and new books have been published of supposedly improved alternative services – e.g., in England there is now the multi-volume Common Worship. Thus, at the parish level, the rector and vestry are faced with a tremendous choice, which they are encouraged by the experts to make use of and not be tied down to just one form week by week – after all, is not liturgical variety the spice of modern church life? So the modern books/websites of options for liturgy have elevated the rector (or the rector with worship committee) to the position of virtually total control of what amounts to liturgy for the congregation, for it is claimed he/she and they know best.
So, remarkable, in thirty years there has been a dramatic move from submission to control at the parish level by clergy. No wonder we have a major crisis of hun proportions in modern Anglicanism in the West/North!
And to keep up the appearance that this massive variety is still “common prayer” the definition of common prayer has been revised by the experts to mean – not texts used in common by all – but a common simple structure with a few required elements. So, get the shape right and put in the necessaries like the Lord’s Prayer and you have Anglican Liturgy and “common prayer”!
So the autonomy of the Province to decide worship, doctrine and discipline is now matched by the autonomy of the parish in matters liturgical. And thereby what both bound parishes together in dioceses and national Provinces and what bound Provinces together as the Anglican Communion until the 1970s, has virtually disappeared. No wonder the Windsor Report of 2004, aware of the confusion and divisions called for a greater emphasis on the Instruments of Unity (e.g., the role of Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates’ Meeting) with the making of a common covenant of membership for all to sign!
What is missing is, of course, that which served as the glue for a very long time, the presence of a Common Prayer/Liturgy through the use of one Book (in local editions), a common way of ordaining clergy and bishops (the Ordinal) and a common Confession of Faith (the Articles and Creeds and Catechism) in all Provinces and all parishes (allowing for a comprehensiveness of churchmanship and a variety of languages).
Probably we have gotten so used to the freedom involved in local control (and with it the questionable claims by clergy that modern people need modern forms of service with variety to feel that what they are doing is relevant and meaningful) that it will take nothing short of a miracle for clergy and lay leaders to be willing to return to submission for the sake of truth and unity, and truly, for the greater glory of God. Let us be clear, submission to anyone or anything is not a virtue in the estimation of most westerners. It is there of course in the armed forces and elsewhere out of necessity, but, as a voluntary activity seen as a virtue, either in marriage or in the church, it is rare and is even declared to be a weakness when seen in action!
On what basis can the Anglican Family be a genuine Fellowship, locally and internationally, except by the possession of common Formularies which are themselves based upon the Sacred Scriptures and contain the Creeds?
The use of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral has been suggested as a means to unify parishes in dioceses and Provinces as a Communion. But this document from the late 19th century is all about the basics required for the union of Anglican Provinces with other Churches (e.g. Lutheran or Methodist or Old Catholic). It is not sufficient in its scope to be the internal bonds that unite Anglicans.
If there is a willingness in the West/North to submit to a norm as a means to unify the one jurisdiction known as the Anglican Way, then that norm has to be the Common Prayer and the Formularies. The real Common Prayer, which is now only available in traditional English, could be rendered carefully into contemporary English so that there would be a choice of traditional of contemporary forms of the one service at the local level, with variety in churchmanship, music etc. This choice, however, would be minimal in comparison with the vast possibilities for choice now there.
If these route were adopted it would take a massive effort in education first of clergy and then of congregations, for the right to local choice is deeply embedded right now in the mindset and spirituality of modern Episcopalians. Only a spiritual earthquake or a mighty spiritual hurricane could possibly bring needed change. And only very sensitive pastoral care could cause it to come in smoothly.
My judgment, however, is that it is the only way to unite the people of the Anglican Way and in saying this I am glad to be able to state that the Anglican Church of Nigeria has publicly stated much the same thing – unity on the basis of the Scripture and Formularies, not via the instruments of unity, so called.
In this assertion I look for support from the Network, the American Anglican Council and other evangelical and anglo-catholic “orthodox” groups in the USA. If they all have a different strategy that they believe will work then I ask them to publish it so that we can all ponder it cartefully.
Petertoon@msn.com November 19, 2005
posted by John at 9:52 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Let Wo[men] be Wo[men]
Should gifted Christian Ladies be Presbyters and Bishops in the Church of God?
A discussion starter for those without high blood pressure
At the “Hope and a Future Conference” at Pittsburgh, November 10-12, 2005, the Moderator of the Third Session on the Friday was, as stated in the program, “The Rev. Canon Dr. Mary Maggard Hays, Canon Missioner, Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” She is “the right hand man”, as it were, of the Bishop, Robert William Duncan, who is the Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network.
Here are three significant facts which are also powerful symbols about Mary – Ms Hays is called “Rev.Canon” and thus a presbyter and a canon of the cathedral; she was placed on the Platform in a position of leadership for three hours; and her weekly job is to be the primary assistant of the bishop and thus involved in leadership in the diocese.
I do not want in any way to doubt the character, knowledge and ability of Ms Hays. What I do want to do is to use the symbolism of her role to reflect upon where The Network is and where its Bishops are in their approach to Scripture, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and holy Tradition.
It was stated not once but often at the Conference, as a kind of rallying cry, that the “orthodox” of the Network (unlike the “revisionists” of ECUSA) are committed first and foremost to the authority of Scripture (for Faith and Morals) and to the Lordship of Christ in home, church and personal life.
This is fine, but it leaves not answered the quite serious matter of how the sacred Scriptures are to be read and how their message becomes the expression of the Lordship of Christ. If we look back thirty or forty years we find that Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics read and interpreted the New Testament to teach that there is a divine order in creation of male and female, that while they are equal before God as his adopted children by grace, there is nevertheless a “headship” given to the male in home and church. Thus women should not practically speaking, and ought not morally speaking, to be ordained to the position of pastors of the flock of Jesus the Lord – despite the fact that more and more women were taking leadership positions in education, medicine, business and so on.
Then very soon, following the turbulent 1970s, a growing number of Bible-based Episcopalians began to claim that the better and more enlightened way to read the Scriptures was to advance the view that the doctrine of divine order of the priority of the male, in his equal relation with the female, was applied in NT times by the churches in cultures where there was an endemic “patriarchy and sexism”; and it was this cultural situation, and not the intention of the Lord Jesus and his apostles, that was the real reason why women were not called as apostles and appointed as presbyters and bishops in the apostolic age and Early Church. So some Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics began to affirm that to ordain women as pastors was according to the mind of Christ the Lord, even though against the common-sense reading of the New Testament. When asked for biblical evidence by doubters of this innovation, the reply was to point to the truth under the surface as it were and to quote baptismal texts like Galatians 3:28 which proclaim the equality of female and male in Christ and before God. However, such quoting of texts teaching equality before God, was usually connected, implicitly or explicitly, to the emerging, powerful rhetoric of rights that the contemporary culture was proclaiming for women.
Now in adopting this new approach to the reading of Scripture (which was then prevalent in academic circles), the pioneers of women’s ordination were not using a wholly new methodology within the Episcopal Church. If we go back to the 1950s and 1960s and read the arguments advanced for the Episcopal Church to change its discipline concerning the remarriage of divorcees in Church we find the same type of thing happened. The significant NT texts were read in the most liberal way possible and contrary to their interpretation in Tradition & Canon Law, and were also, and significantly, read within the developing culture of human rights and freedoms. So the ECUSA was able, after some bitter debate, to maintain its teaching that fornication and adultery are wrong but at the same time innovate, that is, allow, with very few exceptions, the remarriage of divorced persons in Church, and furthermore, allow clergy, who are ministers of the sacrament of marriage, to be divorced and remarried. As we all know, the “divorce culture” is now endemic in the ECUSA and in The Network membership, and to question it is just not the thing to do.
Modern westerners, indeed most Episcopalians, read the NT in 2005 with a mindset that is deeply influenced by the doctrine & practice of human rights and thus they assume that the Word of God written teaches what to them is so obviously clear -- the equality of women in all areas, and the right of a man or women to have a second or third chance in marriage with the blessing of God and his church. Their theology, ethics and spirituality embrace these things as the norm. So the matter of ordination of women or the remarriage of divorcees in church become only matters of like or dislike or of political expediency or preference; it is not a crucial matter of obedience to the Lord Jesus and of his authority.
What seems most clear is that the New Testament interpreted in its literal, straightforward and common sense meaning forbids the ordination of women as presbyters and bishops as it also forbids the remarriage of many who now claim that right. (See the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1648, XXIV, “Of Marriage and Divorce” for the one exception allowed by the Protestant Reformers.)
Now this new methodology and way of interpreting the Bible has very important implications not only for Ministry and Marriage but also for the current response by the Church to the LesBiGay agenda, and particularly to the claim that God blesses same-sex, faithful, covenanted partnerships and that persons in such are eligible for ordination as a presbyter and consecration as a bishop.
It is very clear that the Evangelicals of the Network and the Primates of Nigeria and Uganda are using Scripture to oppose and condemn the innovatory doctrine of the LesBiGay lobby; it is also clear (or seems clear to me) that their “party” has reverted to the way it used the NT for proof texts and doctrine back in the 1960s. In other words, the sophisticated approach to interpretation of the sacred texts (in the context of human rights) that allowed the acceptance of innovations of the marriage of divorcees in church and the ordination of women is not being used in this battle! Why? Because, if it were, the possibility is that it would open the door to one or another of the claims of the LesBiGay lobby!
In fact, what the biblical scholars who write for the LesBiGay movement may be said to be doing is applying the same methods of interpretation used by Evangelicals to support remarriage in church and ordination of women, but using them in an advanced way and within the continuing powerful context of human rights.
If the Evangelicals were to read, interpret and apply Scripture as participants in the homosexuality debate as they do with respect to their commitment to remarriage and ordination, then it is possible, maybe probable, that they would find it very difficult to oppose reasonably the claim that God may bless the covenanted, faithful union of two persons of the same sex, while at the same time agreeing with the leaders of the Christian LesBiGay movement that any other form of same-sex activity (e.g. sodomy) is sinful.
Put in another way, it is one thing for African bishops to oppose the homosexual agenda for they are consistent in reading Scripture as generally not allowing either the marriage of divorcees in church or the ordination of women; yet it is a very different thing for the Network to do so for it has generally allowed the marriage of divorcees and the ordination of women and thus does not appear to read Scripture consistently. In order to be taken seriously, what the Network states about homosexuality and same-sex relations has to be matched by a recovery of the pre-1960s Evangelical & Catholic approach to marriage and ordination and by a clear statement of how Scripture is to be read and interpreted with regard to the formation of doctrine and moral practice!
I wholly realize that to do such a U-turn would need tremendous courage and massive pastoral sensitivity, especially to the women who are in orders now. But is there any other way for there to be a genuine reform and renewal of the Anglican Way in America and in the West generally?
petertoon@msn.com November 19, 2005
p.s. my book from 1990 on ordination entitled, Let Women be Women (Gracewing, Dublin) is being digitally copied and will be available for downloading within 14 days or so.
posted by John at 9:47 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Friday, November 18, 2005
Anglicanism – what kind of future?
Post Pittsburgh Conference Reflections:
A discussion and prayer starter!
To make suggestions as to what future the Anglican Way has in North America, and especially within a nation that has a major, competitive supermarket of American religions, one needs to begin by asking and answering a question.
It is this: What does the Anglican Way have to offer to people, who are searching to know God, that will enable them to love and worship Him and also love and serve their neighbor? And more particularly, What, if any, are the features or distinctives of the Anglican Way, which make this Way not only different from other similar groups but a true means of coming to know God and enjoying communion with Him?
[Questions like these are asked by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox authorities when small “Anglican” jurisdictions (e.g., the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Charismatic Episcopal Church) come to them asking for a uniate status or similar relation of association. The authorities wish to know what is truly worth preserving for the generations to come in the tradition of worship, doctrine and discipline of the petitioning jurisdiction.]
So what is unique, or at least very special, about the Anglican Way as a major jurisdiction in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God? Why should people seek membership of the Body of Christ through its administration of the Sacraments and proclamation of the Gospel? And, why should Anglicans engage in the great commission of the Lord Jesus to evangelize, teach and baptize and thus seek to enlarge the membership of the Church of God through this jurisdiction?
One way to answer this question is via the empirical method, to study as a social scientist what goes on in the churches called Episcopalian or Anglican in the USA. The strength of this approach is that it provides you with information which then can be compared with that from Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Mega-churches, Community churches, and so on.
Another way is to look at the formation of the Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism in the sixteenth century and seek by looking at these origins and developments from them to ascertain what are its foundational principles, doctrines and standards.
Empirical
If we go the route of descriptive social science then we shall probably receive a picture of a denomination that is united in several things – e.g., in having sacred space at whose center is a holy table or altar, of making the Eucharist its major service, of reciting a Creed and the Lord’s Prayer in it, having a basic structure or shape to this Eucharist which includes a “sharing of the Peace”, giving Communion in two kinds, calling its clergyperson a Rector, having someone in ultimate charge outside who is the Bishop with a diocese, being ruled locally by a vestry of ten or so people and belonging to a diocese.
At the same time we shall also probably learn that there is great variety – e.g., in the type of music used, the layout of the building, the way people dress for church, the size of congregations, the provision of facilities for children and for education; the actual prayer and doctrinal content placed within the common structure of the Eucharist, the forms of ceremonial used, the way the clergy dress, the amount clergy are paid, the types of theology and doctrine taught and preached, the approach to sexual ethics and relations, especially homosexuality, attitudes to other churches, including fellow Anglican/Episcopal groups, preferences in politics, and commitment to evangelism, mission and social service locally.
Probably a general impression arising from such study would be that of assuming that the Anglican Way is such a mixed bag that its appeal is not national but local, that is a local parish is found attractive for one or another specific reason by local people. These reasons for attracting people locally will probably usually be those very things which are common to all churches such as right location, right times of service, right size of congregation, right provision of facilities for kids and the elderly, good music program and so on. A person attending would tend equate what is Anglican with what he experienced and thus would probably be wholly out of place and sorts at another different Anglican congregation ten miles away, unless it happened by chance to work from a similar model (e.g., the purpose-driven church created by Rick Warren of the famous Saddleback church).
Now we would probably also find in the study that some people travel a long way to a given Anglican church because of its claim to be preserving and continuing as far as it is able the basic distinctives of the long Anglican tradition. That is, this church uses for its worship an edition of the Prayer Book that is based on the original Book of Common Prayer from 1549 and 1552 [e.g. the English 1662, the USA 1928 and the Canadian 1962]; it has music which was specifically composed for use with this Prayer Book; it provides on the Lord’s Day the series of services from that Prayer Book – Morning Prayer, Litany and Holy Communion, and then in the afternoon or evening, Evening Prayer, and all in the traditional language of English Public Prayer. It teaches a form of Christianity based on the Bible supplemented by the Creeds, Catechism and the historic Anglican Formularies. And that in its general use of symbol, ritual and ceremonial it follows one of the long-standing approaches, either “low” or “high” or somewhere between.
If this church has all the facilities that the others do – good parking, provision for children and elderly – and is friendly, it has as much chance of growing as do the others, even though initially new people will need to adjust to the use of traditional prayer language and of set liturgy as well as dressing in a way that does not suggest they are attending a religious leisure activity.
A suggestion
Since the advent of a variety of services and liturgies beginning in the 1970s, and with the new definition of “common prayer” as a common shape rather than common whole texts having entered the scene, the unity of the Anglican Way as it is gathers on the Lord’s Day for worship of the Holy Trinity is most difficult to identify and see because the variety is so intense. This situation will surely continue and intensify unless there is determination and will to find a common center and agree some basic rules of deviation from that center.
I suggest that the only reason for the Anglican Way to exist in such a vast supermarket of religions is to be what it said it was in 1549 and what it continued to say it was until the 1970s in the West and still says it is in places like Nigeria and Uganda. That is, it is an expression of Reformed Catholicism, and (to quote Canon A5 of the mother Church, the C of E) “the doctrine is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church that are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine as is to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” [Regrettably the ECUSA abandoned this commitment in 1979 with its rejection of the Anglican Formularies and the making of a book of varied services with a false title into its new formulary.] Anglican uniqueness as a jurisdiction before God in the one Catholic Church is in this grounding and commitment of Reformed Catholicism. If it departs from this foundation, style and ethos then it has no real reasons for being a separate reality at all.
To recover a genuine Anglican identity, evangelical and anglo-catholic Episcopalianism belonging to The Network and the American Anglican Council has a long route to take in the USA. It has to recover not only the authority of the Scriptures in a wise and godly way but also the secondary authorities, the historic, classic Formularies. It has to recover a way of worshipping that is truly Reformed Catholic and not imitative of popular charismaticism or generic evangelicalism or Tridentine Rome or ecumenical norms from the World Council of Churches. It has to develop ways of evangelism and instruction that lead converts naturally into classic liturgical ways of worship with godly habits and devotion [and not into generic Protestantism or the like].
In all this, to meet people where they are, Episcopalians will need to have a contemporary language form of its classic Book of Common Prayer (a contemporary form of the 1662 BCP as also of the 1928 & 1962 editions). They will need to think out ways of using the classic services in either the traditional language or the contemporary equivalent in such a way as to use the gifts of the congregation, in music especially. One can think of new music settings for the whole services, e.g., for the Canticles and Psalms, the Litany, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Sursum Corda. The local band or orchestra can exist along with the organ. The main thing is that they need to envisage a situation for the future where there will be a common text in use in two parallel forms which contains a common doctrine that is Reformed Catholic and in this unity there will be comprehensiveness of churchmanship, style, and ethos. The place of female clergy if any and the use f any Alternative or additional forms of services can be worked at later when the actual reality of Reformed Catholicism is on its way to being restored.
Right now what can be done is this: the contemporary version of the classic BCP can be prepared. Some of the work has already been done but there is yet much to do, and it will require a small dedicated team, including one or two with a real feel for language to be read in public. [go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com and look at the book, Worshipping the Lord in the Anglican Way….Parallel texts]
Further preparation could begin by clergy and lay leaders studying and using for their devotions the services of the classic BCP. [Please note that at www.anglicanmarketplace.com there are CD’s for sale on which in pdf form are collections of first-class books by leading Anglican theologians expounding the BCP, Ordinal and Articles.]
I personally optimistically look for some organization or church or society to take up the challenge to provide – at first for devotional use and then when refined for public worship – the full text of the BCP in contemporary English, so that it can be seen and felt by many who need to use contemporary English to address God what is Reformed Catholicism and how it is expressed in worship, prayer and devotion. To date many have expressed interest in this project but no specific group has yet volunteered to sponsor the project and raise the say $25,000.00 needed to produce a good edition of multiple copies of the book.
If the above be in God’s will for the Anglican family, may he show us the way.
petertoon@msn.com November 18, 2005
posted by John at 1:23 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Stir up our wills, O LORD: Today please, not in the far distant future!
(The Collect for the last Sunday of the Christian Year)
Have you ever been comfortably seated watching TV, or reading a good book, and yet also been aware of (a) various necessary jobs to be done in the kitchen or elsewhere, and (b) a lack of will power to get up and do what has to be done?
It is common for human beings to experience in their moral and spiritual lives what Luther called in a famous book, “the bondage of the will”, a seeming lack of power to do what is known to be a duty and requirement. In the soul, as it were, there is not always a smooth gear change between what the conscience declares to be right and what the will alone can set in motion.
The weakness of the will of baptized believers in the Christian life of obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ was well recognized by the apostles (see Romans 7-8) and by the bishops and teachers in the Early Church. This is why they called upon all to use the means of grace provided by the Gospel and to pursue sanctification before God. He who knows his own heart well knows that it is prone to lethargy; that it seems always ready to relapse into slumber as if it were satisfied with present attainments in the moral sphere. It needs constantly to be re-charged as it were and prompted to godly action.
Regrettably in much modern forms of Christianity, this truth and practical experience are not taken seriously (because there is such a low doctrine of human sinfulness) and it is assumed that people are free to do what is right if they so wish (see the Catechism or Outline of Faith in the ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book for such teaching, which we may call Pelagianism if we want to give it an ancient title.)
The Collect [set prayer] for the last Sunday of the Christian Year in the ancient Gregorian Sacramentary [service book] and in the medieval Sarum Use [service book used in medieval England] and in The Book of Common Prayer (1549 and later editions) took this bondage of the will to sin for granted as a reality experienced during the past year and prayed for the empowerment of the will by the Holy Spirit for the coming year. In its English form as translated by Archbishop Cranmer, it prays:
Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The will is stirred up whenever by the presence and influence of the Holy Spirit (directly or through the means of grace) the internal affections of reverence before God, hope in God and love for God are set in motion so as to give strength and motivation to the will. Yet, it remains within our power even when our wills are set in motion not to follow the lead of these godly affections; that is, we may resist and avoid their direction. The lethargic will, aroused by grace, can, as it were, turn over on its side and try to back to sleep. When this happens there is regression in the Christian life.
But Christ calls his disciples to follow him, to love God and the neighbor, to fulfill the great commission to evangelize and teach, and thus they ought, as and when aroused, to follow the direction of the Spirit and in his power do whatever duty is set before them, with joy and thanksgiving, bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit in practical Christian living. And a constant duty and vocation is to abound in good works for the benefit of men and the glory of God. [We recall that Dorcas is commended as having been “full of good works and alms-deeds which she did” (Acts 9:36); that Paul declared that we are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10) and we are to be “a peculiar people zealous of good works” (Titus 2:4).]
I would not work my soul to save for that my Lord has done;
But I would work like any slave for love of God’s dear Son.
Let us allow the Holy Spirit to stir up our wills and to inspire us to follow His lead into the production of the fruit of the Spirit & into good works to the glory of the Father.
An application at the corporate level for USA Anglicans/Episcopalians.
It would seem reasonable to affirm that at the recent “Hope and a Future Conference” in Pittsburgh (Nov 10-12) there was truly a stirring up of the wills of many people in the direction of good works in Christ’s name specifically towards the reformation and renewal of the Anglican Way in North America.
When a people is united, it is as though they have one will which can be stirred up, set alight and activated to do courageously what God is calling to be done. However, this one people has to have godly leadership to map out what exactly is to be done and how. Without such, their godly energy is dissipated. Bishops, as their pastors, must also have the experience of the stirring of the will and then freely decide to go with the godly motion of the Spirit, and, in so doing, lead their flocks into deeper engagement with God in Christ unto sanctification and consecration.
My great fear is that in waiting for leadership to show where to go and how and when, the Pittsburgh people will, as it were, eventually turn over in their beds and allow themselves to fall asleep again - thus losing another opportunity (as one was lost by the failure of the Episcopal Synod in 1990) to bring renewal to the Episcopal Way! Shepherds have to lead their flock and from in front!
O Lord Christ, do Thou not only stir up our wills but also give us a firm but gracious push into the doing of what Thou wouldst have us be and do; and not tomorrow,but today. Amen.
petertoon@msn.com November 18, 2005
posted by John at 9:01 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Real Sex! An exercise in self-examination
I am an advocate neither for the LesBiGay agenda nor for same-sex unions. Further, I do not approve the ordination of active homosexual persons in such unions. (See e.g., my Same-Sex Affection, Holiness and Ordination, from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1 800 727 1928.) Nevertheless, I do believe that dialogue with homosexual persons who advocate same-sex covenanted unions in the churches in a right and good thing to engage in. In our present state to dialogue with them is preferable to preaching at them.
However, what is becoming clearer to me is this. That we, who take it upon ourselves to judge as misguided, misdirected and participating in sin those who advocate and live in same-sex partnerships, need to be wholly aware of the very high standard of sexual morality and purity to which the Gospel and the Church of God through history calls all of us. Put another way, unless we are both proclaiming and striving to keep the full Christian norm as our standard, goal and ideal, we really have no right to say anything much at all in criticism of the lives and claims of homosexual persons who seek to live in covenanted, faithful unions. Otherwise we run the danger of being hypocrites and of telling others to live by a norm that we do not fully accept for ourselves.
Obviously what I am referring to is the whole Christian approach to sexuality which includes
(a) chastity and purity of soul and body and thus, for example, a limited and careful use of “dating”;
(b) no live-in arrangements for a short or long term by heterosexual couples, for this is a sophisticated form of fornication;
(c) a commitment to marriage as a one-flesh union of two persons, male and female, until parted by death;
(d) divorce as a rare and painful separation and certainly not a right for everyone;
(e) no automatic church marriage for a divorced person if she or he wishes to remarry;
(f) the understanding of being made one flesh in terms of a commitment to procreation in a responsible way;
(g) the rejection of the use of marriage as simply a means to personal sexual fulfillment and companionship through the use of birth control appliances and means, with no intention to procreate;
(h) the rejection of the use of abortion in any form as a means of birth control for this is an aspect of the culture of death.
Now where are we as regular Anglicans, as “orthodox” Evangelicals and as good Anglo-Catholics in this important sphere of personal relations and sexual morality? Generally speaking it would appear that we fall short of the norms both in our teaching and our living. In our forgetting or neglecting of the call to chastity, in our connivance in live-in arrangements for our church members and friends, in our common use of marriage primarily as a means of sexual fulfillment, in our use of birth-control methods to aid this fulfillment, and in the prevalence of abortion on demand in our circles, not to mention the very high divorce rate with many second marriages in our circles (including bishops and clergy), we stand under the judgment of God just as surely as do those “gay” church members whom we believe to be misguided and sinful.
Do we have any right to tell homosexual persons what to be and do except we do so with streams of penitent tears flowing down our face and drowning our voice?
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” is maybe a word in season to all of us.
In conclusion
I do think, and I stand to be corrected, that in the present crisis of Anglicanism over sexual ethics, the reforming groups active now in Episcopalianism and Anglicanism in the West are most probably doomed to failure in their goals of creating a renewed Anglican Way, unless and until they are prepared to face this matter of their own internal practice of sexual relations. Is not the Church called to be the pure Bride of Jesus the Bridegroom? Or put in an altogether different way, Is Gene Robinson really any more off the mark than many of us are if the pure law of God is the judge?
petertoon@msn.com November 17, 2005
posted by John at 5:32 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) announces a covenant with two North American church bodies
ACNS 4075 NIGERIA 17 NOVEMBER 2005
Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) announces a covenant with two North American church bodies
The Church of Nigeria has released the following two press statements:
Covenant Between The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America.
In an historic moment, as part of the realignment of global Anglicanism, on November 12, 2005 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the Most Rev. Leonard W. Riches, Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Most Rev. Walter H. Grundorf, Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of America, entered on behalf of their three Churches a Covenant Union of Anglican Churches in Concordat.
The purpose of the covenant of concord is to work together in the common cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, pledging to each other their mutual cooperation, support, discipline and accountability. Recognizing that all three Churches share a common heritage of faith and order within the Anglican tradition, they are united by saving belief in Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life, and by their commitment to the Faith once delivered, based on the irrevocable Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the final authority for faith and life.
It was agreed that ministers of these Churches, subject to the respective regulations within the jurisdictions, may be eligible to exercise pastoral ministry in each Church. Archbishops and bishops of the Churches in concordat may also be invited to conduct episcopal duties within the other jurisdictions with the blessing of the appropriate provincial authorities.
The three Churches have united specifically for joint mission in North America. Archbishops Riches and Grundorf welcomed the Church of Nigeria's CANA initiative. They assured Archbishop Akinola that, wherever possible, individual congregations of all three jurisdictions, within proximate geographic locations, would work closely and cooperatively together to demonstrate their commitment to one another and their desire to witness to a consistent Biblical, Evangelical and Catholic expression of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Covenant Union of Anglican Churches in Concordat among The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) The Reformed Episcopal Church, and The Anglican Province of America.
Whereas the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America share a common heritage of faith and order within the Anglican tradition; be it understood that:
Article 1: The Churches, recognizing the fact that they are working together in the common cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, pledge to each other, their mutual cooperation, support, discipline and accountability.
Article 2: Wherever possible, individual congregations within proximate geographic locations will work closely and cooperatively to demonstrate their commitment to one another and their desire to witness to a consistent Biblical, Evangelical and Catholic expression of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Article 3: As evidence of our union in Christ and the Common Standards of the faith existing among the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America, a delegation of ministers and laity may be sent to attend each other's Provincial and General Synods or Councils. As a further demonstration of our union, bishops of the Churches may attend each other's episcopal meetings with the expectation that they will be invited to speak but not cast votes.
Article 4: The Ministers of the Churches may, subject to the respective regulations of the Churches, be eligible to exercise pastoral ministry in each Church. Archbishops and Bishops of the Churches in the concordat may also be invited to conduct episcopal duties with accountability, discipline and the episcopal blessing of the local appropriate provincial authorities.
Article 5: Communicants of the Churches may be received into the other Churches on presentation of letters of transfer, or their equivalent.
Article 6: It is also our declared intention to initiate a process that will permit us, in due course to enter into an agreement of full communion with a clear and common understanding of all of its implications.
The miracle of CANA continues!
From the Primate of all Nigeria, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola:
Greetings in the name of our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Earlier this year we announced CANA - a mission of the Church of Nigeria, a Convocation for Anglicans in North America. We see this as a creative way to provide pastoral and episcopal care for those alienated by the actions of ECUSA. As we said in our letter of April 7th, 2005, "Our intention is not to challenge or intervene in the churches of ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada but to provide safe harbour for all those who can no longer find their spiritual home in those churches." While CANA is an initiative of the Church of Nigeria it is our desire is to welcome all those who share our faith and vision for the Church.
In September 2005 at its 8th General Synod of the Church of Nigeria made the necessary constitutional changes to permit the formal establishment of the Convocation in the USA and we have just completed the necessary legal framework to establish CANA as a recognized Anglican Church structure in the USA. Abraham N. Yisa, Esq., Registrar of the Church of Nigeria will serve as chairman of the board of trustees, Chief Gboyega Delano of Chicago will serve as secretary and Mrs. Patience Oruh of Maryland will serve as treasurer. I am profoundly grateful for their willingness to serve and look forward to adding additional members to the Board as our work expands
We are beginning a process of formally incorporating clergy and congregations into CANA and we will shortly be selecting and consecrating episcopal leadership to oversee further growth and development and enable us to more effectively respond to the pressing needs within the USA. We are working closely and cooperatively with the Anglican Communion Network and others who are committed to orthodox Anglican faith and practice. It is our hope to find more creative ways to strengthen our common witness as we seek to remain faithful to our Gospel mission. One example is our recently adopted Covenant agreement with the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America.
In the first miracle of CANA Jesus transformed a disaster into a glorious celebration and it is our desire to see God use CANA again to transform the crisis in the Communion into an occasion of great blessing.
For further information about CANA please contact the Rev'd Nathan Kanu, Oklahoma City, CANA Interim Communications Officer, odinathnfe@sbcglobal.net
Editors Note:
The Reformed Episcopal Church and The Anglican Province of America are Churches that are not in Communion with the See of Canterbury.
posted by John at 4:27 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Is Schism is the worst form of Heresy? Reforming the Church – the USA way!
A much recited mantra chanted especially by Mid-West ECUSA Anglo-Catholics has been and remains: “Schism is the worst form of heresy.” They resorted to this when some of their friends left the ECUSA in 1977 to form the Continuing Church in St Louis and they have held to it since, chanting it now as increasing numbers of mostly Evangelicals leave the ECUSA to join what is now often called “the Diaspora” of Anglicans outside the ECUSA.
What these Anglo-Catholics exhibit is a certain pride in what they have achieved in the ECUSA, including the “catholic” features of the 1979 Prayer Book, and also a concern that their claims to Catholicity may well be diminished or obliterated by an existence out there in the competitive supermarket of American religions.
What they, and many others of different churchmanship, seem not to take into account is the simple fact that -- excluding the massive Roman Catholic Church, which seems to have mechanisms to reform itself and stay united -- the one and only way that reforming groups within American churches and denominations have found to achieve their ideals is to separate from the mother institution and create a new institution wherein what they regard as fundamental, necessary and important is securely present. If one reviews the history of all the major denominations which were present from colonial times one sees example after example of the secession of a group in order to create afresh what has been lost or eclipsed. Many of the current denominations in the American supermarket of religion are not imports from abroad but are the result of secessions from denominations which were imports – Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians and so on. In fact, in the examples of thousands (yes thousands) of churches in the supermarket it is difficult, probably impossible, to find even one that took seriously the progressive liberal path and then did a complete U-turn back to a basic evangelical orthodoxy!
So the prevailing and dominant message in USA Christianity since the 19th century has often been, not “schism is worse than heresy”, but rather, “schism is the only way to avoid and get away from heresy.” Secession is the American Way!
Which brings us to the situation in the ECUSA as we know it in late 2005!
There have been secessions from the Episcopal Church in the last thirty years to create the Continuing Churches, the Anglican Mission in America, and a variety of congregational forms of relating to overseas bishops and archbishops -- The Rev. Fr Kim calls these “the alphabet of affiliations”. In all cases these groups fled from heresy, be that heresy the ordination of women or the consecration of a gay man in a partnership with another man as a bishop. Likewise the exit of what became the Reformed Episcopal Church some 130 years ago was also to flee from heresy – catholic ones!
Back in 1989-90 when the Episcopal Synod was at its height and it had the capacity and moral power to lead a major secession from the ECUSA, its leadership resorted to the old mantra: “Schism is the worst form of heresy.” So the marching army returned to base and gradually the troops went home. A few stayed on, especially women soldiers, to keep the organization going as the Forward in Faith movement.
Now The Network (with the American Anglican Council) is in a similar but not identical position to that of the Episcopal Synod in 1990. What is its basic mantra? Is it “Schism is the worst form of heresy” (a position that most of its bishops appear to hold, howbeit in a weak not a strong form) or “Secession from the ECUSA is the only way to keep the Anglican Way of Christianity alive and viable”? Many of us would like to know where it stands and what advice the overseas Archbishops of Nigeria and Uganda give as to whether they think that secession to form a new province is the right way.
What seems abundantly clear is that the ECUSA will NOT engage in any real and true reform. Its commitment to its innovations and the ideology under-girding them seems to be virtually total. So while it may engage in tactical moves to seek to accommodate some of its critics, it will not change as to become what it once was, a Reformed Catholic Church of the Anglican Way. To think and say that good organization and the spending of a lot of money, even with prayer warriors in attendance, will change the direction of the ECUSA at its Convention next year is to engage in wild imagination.
Thus if the “orthodox” do not secede from “the revisionists” of ECUSA it seems that the leaders of the Network will, like those of the Episcopal Synod before them, simply find ways to live reasonably peaceably within the ECUSA, making compromises and adjustments as necessary to preserve their existence, and allowing their army to return home from barracks. Of course, and this would surprise many, they may decide to take a strong and valiant and courageous stand for the Reformed Catholic Faith within ECUSA, and wait in due time to be sent to trial, found guilty of “heresy” [rejecting the liberal and progressive orthodoxy of ECUSA] and then sent forth into exile.
petertoon@msn.com November 17, 2005
posted by John at 12:11 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
A Duty for the “Orthodox” if they decide to remain in the ECUSA? Dialogue between “The Network” and the “Gay” members of ECUSA
If The Network Bishops do not declare themselves out of communion with those bishops and dioceses where the innovatory sexuality is in sway, and if they have decided to stay within the Episcopal Church for as long as is possible, working and hoping for reform and renewal, then I suggest that they are duty-bound to engage in dialogue with the leaders of the “Gay” lobby. In fact, such a way forward has been recommended by the Lambeth Conference, Primates’ Meeting and other bodies.
But before the dialogue begins, I suggest that the representatives of the Network should read at least four documents: The Windsor Report; the submission of June 2005 of the Presiding Bishop’s theological team to the Anglican Consultative Council entitled, To Set Our Hope on Christ ; my response to it entitled, Same-Sex Affection…A Response to Presiding Bishop Griswold (available at http://www.anglicanmarketplace.com/ and from 1-800-727-1928), and the recent, substantial book, Gays and the Future of Anglicanism: responses to the Windsor Report ( edited by Andrew Linzey & Richard Kirker, O Books, New York, 2005, ISBN 1-905047-38-X).
The latter book has essays in it by over 20 well-known academics from the UK and the USA. Not all are homosexual persons but all believe that the time has arrived for such persons to be fully recognized in the Church. Further, all believe that the plans to centralize the Anglican Communion in the Windsor Report will destroy the Anglican Way as it has been known.
From my study and observations, it seems to me that a dialogue could take the following form. I offer it as a starter to serious discussion not as a final statement:
- Agreement as to the authority of Scripture, the truth of the Creeds, the truth of the classic Anglican Formularies of the Province.
- Agreement that sexual norms and relations are secondary doctrines in that they presuppose not only the great dogmas of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, but also the doctrines of revelation, creation, sin, salvation, redemption and sanctification.
- Agreement that the two great commandments are to love God and to love the neighbor and that the Church is to obey the Great Commission to evangelize, teach and baptize.
- Agreement that right now each Province is autonomous and has the right to make its own decisions before God, even as it is seeks advice from other Provinces, always attempting to stay in meaningful communion with them.
- Agreement on the following areas of sexuality and human relations:
(a) That God has made all of us in his image and after his likeness.
(b) That God has made all of us to be in a right relation with him in order to serve and obey him in this life and the life to come.
(c) That each of us is biologically a male or a female.
(d) That it is possible that some of us have a sexual drive or orientation that is not wholly in accord with our biological make-up.
(e) That each of us as a baptized child of God and with the help of the indwelling Spirit, is to remain chaste, avoiding all forms of fornication.
(f) That isolated, irregular sexual intimacies with the same or opposite sex are sinful before God. Fornication and/or adultery are always sins.
(g) That living-in arrangements between a man and a women, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which are not within a clear, covenanted and blessed union are sinful, one aspect of fornication.
(h) That the Scriptures and the Lord Jesus call for the union of a man and woman as one flesh for life in holy matrimony as that which is pleasing to God.
(i) That serial monogamy and easy divorce and remarriage for church members as practiced in the ECUSA is not right or pleasing to God.
(j) That God calls some people to a deliberate celibacy as a vocation before him.
(k) That holy friendship between persons of the same sex can be wholly good. - Agreement that there is substantial disagreement in two areas: first, whether God calls all who do not marry to a life of purity and chastity with sexual abstinence; and second, whether God does bless faithful, covenanted unions of same-sex couples who genuinely seek to love God and service him.
If the Gay leadership were to hear from the Network leadership a genuine commitment to a traditional, biblical and high view of sexual relations then I do no doubt but that it would recognize that its “opponents” were changing, ready to abandon their own lax discipline in terms of pre-marital sex and remarriage of clergy and laity in church after divorce. Right now the Network leadership seems very hypocritical to the Gay leadership for it condemns same-sex partnerships while tolerating in its midst living-in arrangements by heterosexual couples and serial monogamy amongst clergy and laity.
If the Network leadership were to hear from the Gay leadership how they read and interpret Scripture, that they claim to use the same methods as those which led to the acceptance of women’s ordination, and that they believe that human experience testifies that same-sex covenanted unions can be blessed of God, then it may be more understanding & tolerant of this one and only one aspect of homosexuality – the possibility that some genuine, faithful, covenanted unions can and do exhibit signs of the love of God.
It is possible that this Dialogue will not achieve any specific resolutions and agreements. However, it will increase understanding and it should enable the Network to be clear as to why it will either stay in the ECUSA or leave it to attempt to form a new North American Province of the Anglican Communion of Churches.
A final comment. If The Network chooses to leave the ECUSA very soon, then it still needs to sort out its doctrine and practice of sexuality for there is some truth in the charge of hypocrisy made by the Gays in terms of the lax attitudes to heterosexual relations tolerated by the Network in its membership, its teaching and its pastoral practice.
petertoon@msn.com November 17, 2005
posted by John at 9:50 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Anglicans – not much time; but Catholics – all the time necessary. Why?
The Anglican Way is in crisis; the Anglican family is dysfunctional; friends have become enemies; and the Anglican Communion exhibits impaired communion within and between provinces. It seems that there is little time to resolve problems before there are permanent schisms, which will leave the once 38 member Communion fragmented into various (regional) parts. What I want to focus on is the sense that there is a general agreement that there is little time; that the matters causing division are urgent and need to be resolved, not in the distant future but today or the next day, certainly by next year.
Across the Tiber, as it were, is the massive Roman Catholic Church which has a variety of crises all going on at the same time, but where there is nothing like the same sense that they must be resolved immediately or else everything will fall apart. In fact, there is an amazing readiness to be patient and expect a resolution sometime in the future.
Why such a big contrast between the Anglican and the Roman Ways? Are not the issues they face similar – homosexual priests who are not celibate; liturgies whose content and quality of English leaves much to be desired; poor translations of ancient texts for worship; excessive emphasis upon human rights leading to rejection of church teaching in several important areas and so on?
The answer to the question lies in their respective polity, practice of authority, and organization.
Anglicans have a way of resolving problems that works only if everyone in all thirty-eight provinces thinks and behaves calmly, reasonably, patiently and charitably for most of the time. For each province, while committed to interdependence, is in fact self-governing and autonomous and thus not, by canon law, required to take into account what others are doing (a situation that the recent Windsor Report seeks to address and to “tighten up”). So, if any province goes ahead with a controversial innovation then this raises problems not only internally but also in relations with some or all of the other provinces – and this has been demonstrated recently with the innovations of women’s ordination and the blessing of homosexual unions. While there are the so-called “instruments of unity” in place, and while there is an assortment of commissions working on this and that, to facilitate understanding and communion, these varied collections of persons have no authority, except that of moral persuasion.
Thus because there is no sure way in the present, or likely in the near future, to resolve major problems a great sense of urgency descends upon all involved that they must work for resolution today, since tomorrow may be too late. The intense controversy over the consecration of Gene Robinson, a divorced, gay man with a male partner, to the office of bishop is tearing the Communion apart and thus there is heated frenzy to seek to find ways to hold the Communion or the major part of it together and find a way forward. As of now, these efforts seem to have achieved very little. And neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Primates’ Meeting has a sufficient moral authority to cause the warring parties to find some common ground and come to peace with justice.
In contrast, the Roman Church has a central authority and is definitely a hierarchical Church. At its center is the Pope, whose face is usually one of the best known in the whole world. There are long established ways of deciding what is right and wrong, what is orthodoxy and heresy, what is permitted and what is not allowed, how to interpret the Bible, and how to go about resolving issues, problems and controversies. Now these ways and procedures are cumbersome and move slowly; but they do move and people know that eventually they will come to an authoritative word on the subject. Some people will get frustrated and others will get angry but most will recognize that they can hang on even in difficult circumstances for a right resolution will be forthcoming and that this will be the mind of the Church for all to accept.
The genius of the Anglican Way, including within itself both mutual interdependence and responsible autonomy/self-government for provinces, will never be able to handle major crises that spill over provincial borders well, if at all. It is suited to a situation where before a major problem arises it is widely shared, prayed over, and resolution sought in shared wisdom through mutual interdependence and then the right decision can be taken by the local province. It seems that the types of problems arising in the context of a Church situated within post-modernity in the West lead to such emotion and conflict that it is highly probable that the Anglican system will never be able to hand them – even if the recommendations of the Windsor Report which create more centralization are adopted by all.
For committed Anglicans the picture is depressing and provides few signs of encouragement, if one is looking for the maintenance of the Communion as it has been. Optimism is hardly an option but the God who has allowed the present crises to develop is the One who, should He choose, is able by His providence to change the direction of things and thereby cause affairs to look different quickly. Meanwhile, unless we decide to cross the Tiber, we all need to be open to doing all we can to pursue truth in love and orthodoxy in charity, always open to honest dialogue with those with whom we disagree.
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
posted by John at 9:45 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Anglican Congregationalism – a new form of the Anglican Way
To put the word “Anglican” (meaning the Christian faith, worship & Church polity emanating originally from the ECCLESIA ANGLICANA – the C of E) and “Congregationalism” (meaning that worship, doctrine, discipline and polity are wholly in the hands of the local congregation) is odd, very odd. But Anglican Congregationalism exists now and will, I expect, exist more and more during the next decade.
As the Episcopal Church of the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada (not to mention the Churches in Britain and Ireland) become more progressive and less orthodox, more innovatory and less traditional, and more earth-bound and less heaven-bound, there will be a continuing exodus of parts and wholes of congregations in order to set up new congregations outside the old borders, seeking thereby to be more faithful to the norms of the historic Anglican Way.
When each one exits it becomes by its own act a congregational church, an independent group, and it has to decide, whether it likes to do so or not, whether or not to join one of the existing jurisdictions or fellowships or links to overseas bishops (of which three possibilities there are probably forty or so options in 2005) or to join none at all. Until it joins and submits to outside rule, it remains congregational and independent in its governance.
As an independent congregation it may decide for a variety of reasons (e.g., waiting for the creation of a new province of the Anglican Communion in North America) that it will stay independent for a season to give the membership time to discern what is the best way forward for this congregation in their place and circumstances/ If it does this then, supposing that it continues to have “Anglican” worship and follows traditions of Anglican churchmanship, spirituality, devotion and activity, it will be participating in the form of church government that we may call “Anglican Congregationalism.”
Now necessity, it is said, is the mother of invention and so in this circumstance creative ways will need to be found, if the leadership and membership are godly and faithful, of preserving the Anglican Way without being under the pastoral care and rule of a Bishop and his assisting officers like archdeacons. After all, the churches in the American colonies before 1790 or so managed without Bishops for their Bishop was in London and did not come to see them. And we may say that not a few Episcopal parishes have functioned practically over the last twenty or more years as congregational churches, because the bishop has not been invited to visit and they have not sought his/her advice or counsel (even though they paid their membership fee to keep her/him away!).
In the present crisis of Anglicanism, with all the divisions in America, it is most important that when an exiting group decides to be independent for a season that they act with wisdom and prudence. In particular, I suggest that such an independent church adopts by majority vote and keeps to the following basics:
- That discussion to review the situation as to any change in status and relations only be allowed once every two years (better every three years) at the annual meeting. (The reason for this is that it is always VERY unsettling for all to keep on discussing what to do next.)
- That it be agreed at the start that independency would not last more than ten years, by which time the future state of Anglicanism would surely be obvious if not very clear. After all, this is an emergency situation not a permanent position and so ten years in these days of fast action seems reasonable.
- That friendly associations be created with similar churches and that there be fellowship regularly. This will help prevent the creation of idiosyncrasies and of majoring on minors in isolationism.
- That from the beginning a small panel of wise persons outside the congregation be set up to give advice from time to time and to keep the people informed about important developments within Anglicanism.
- That the leaders who were influential in leading out the people should stay with them for the duration so that there is stability and continuity. A clergyman or warden should not lead a people out if he does not intend to stay with them!
- That a friendly bishop be invited from time to time in order to do confirmations and any other special ecclesial things. But he come as asked by the congregation and his role be very limited.
- That property only be leased and not bought so that the congregation can experience the presence of the Lord with his people wherever they meet and not be burdened with money- raising for property.
- That the people follow the advice of Rick Warren and be a purpose-driven church, committed to the Anglican Way of keeping the Two Great Commandments and obeying the Great Commission.
And may God heal and revitalize the Anglican Way in North America during the decade of waiting!
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
posted by John at 2:51 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Sex & the Trinity
A discussion starter for “the orthodox” of ECUSA
The impression has been given by some, including Primates, that getting the doctrine and practice of sexual relations right is more important at this time than believing, teaching and confessing a right doctrine of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and also accepting a right doctrine of the Son as Incarnate, as One Person made known in two natures, divine and human. In fact, there is one book in print by a leader of the Network in the Episcopal Church, which declares that the received Anglican doctrine of the Trinity is both unnecessary and probably wrong! *
The reason for this message of the priority of sexuality is that it is held that what is at stake is the authority of the sacred Scriptures, which, in the evangelical reading of them from within their methods of interpretation, teach that sexual genital relations should only be within holy matrimony of a man and a woman. So the stand taken by the “orthodox” against “gay sex” is really, they believe, a stand for Holy Scripture as God’s Word written.
Often, however, those taking this approach of the priority of correct approaches to sexual relations apparently are not wholly aware:
- That the same Scriptures are on a common sense reading just as much against fornication and adultery as they are against sodomy. Thus they are against the co-habitation practiced by many couples who attend evangelical churches today, even as they are against the divorce culture and the serial monogamy which is just as much prevalent in evangelical churches as in “liberal” ones. Yet there is little said about these matters within the churches where these things are common and prevalent. They seem to be not sins at all in comparison with the supposed great sin of sodomy. In fact not a few leaders are divorced and remarried and they are not asked to step down.
- That the new theory of translation of the Bible adopted in the 1960s of dynamic equivalency together with the new methods of interpretation developed also at that time, allowed for (a) the claim that the doctrine of the “headship” of the male in the NT is culturally conditioned and thus (b) the same NT allows for, or even commends, the ordination of women.
- That the presuppositions (e.g., theories of human rights) and forms of biblical exegesis that allowed for good people to be persuaded of the right for divorced persons to remarry in church and of the rightness of female ordination, can serve and do presently serve also to justify the claim not that sodomy is right, but, rather, that faithful, covenant relations between two persons of the same-sex can be not only right but blessed of God and means of grace. It is, one would suppose, clear to all of reasonable mind that the common sense meaning of the NT (as confirmed by canon law for centuries) does not support either any right to serial monogamy or to women being made “heads” (certainly not as the episcopos, or senior presbyter) of the congregation of Christ’s flock. If it can be read to support divorce and remarriage it is in the most restricted of areas and possibilities.
- That the sins of the flesh, though serious, are not the chief of sins before the Holy Lord God. The most serious of sins are those of the heart, mind and will, that is of the soul. One can commit these sins while holding strong views of the sinfulness of same-sex relations and living in a one-flesh relation of matrimony.
- That error and heresy in the teaching of the basic doctrines of the Faith (e.g. Who is God? Who is Jesus? What is salvation?) are far more serious than error in teaching on sexuality. This is because unless one knows who is God and who is Jesus one cannot begin to form a truly Christian estimate of man as male and female. And unless one is informed by God’s self-revelation as to His own Being one cannot begin to think rightly on what it means for man, as male and female, to be made in the image of God.
- That there is within the self-revelation of God to man not a list of truths that are of equal value, but rather a hierarchy of truths wherein the lesser ones are dependent upon the primary ones. Note what the Creed puts first and note also what the first five of the Thirty-Nine Articles state (concerning The Trinity and the Person and Work of Christ Jesus, the Son). This means that sexual relations have to be seen not as the first doctrine but as an important doctrine to be understand within the hierarchy of truth as a unity and as individual truths, and to be taught within this context, and not isolated.
- That those “revisionists” who believe teach and confess that same-sex relations are acceptable to God and are blessed by Christ Jesus do not (when examined carefully) believe the received orthodox dogmas of God as Holy Trinity, as set forth in such places as the Athanasian Creed and the Thirty-Nine Articles. Rather, while they use a form of Trinitarian language, they hold to views which see the Trinity, for example, as a symbol and model of community, of equality between persons. Their real doctrine of God is often, truth be told, that of panentheism or Unitarianism/deism.
Much more could be said! However, the point from all this is that if there is to be reformation & renewal as hoped for by the Network and other groups, this needs to be a recovery of the whole truth of God, his whole counsel, and not merely the winning of a victory over sexual relations within the Episcopal Church USA and Anglican Church of Canada! For a church wherein there is no sodomy may well be a church in which there is much sin both of the heart and of the flesh!
Perhaps, the “orthodox” should refrain from any more condemnation of the doctrine of the rightness of same-sex covenanted partnership until they are sure that they do really and truly confess the whole of the Catholic Faith and that they know why it is (in their pastoral practice) right to remarry divorcees and ordain godly women but wrong to bless same-sex faithful couples. The probability is that if they go into this matter in some depth and with a readiness to learn that they will soon realize that in some way the ordination of women, the marrying in church of divorced persons, and the blessing of same-sex couples rely upon the same doctrines of human rights together with an enlightened and sophisticated use of the Bible as a source of proof texts.
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
posted by John at 11:59 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Pride in a Name? Cherishing a Title? Why “Episcopal” matters!
-- a discussion starter!
Is there still an underlying – or even an on-the-surface – pride amongst members, even “orthodox” and “evangelical” ones, of the Episcopal Church of the USA in the name “Episcopalian”?
Americans in 1789 followed the example of the tiny Church in Scotland called “The Episcopal Church” and called their secession from the Church of England by the name of “The Protestant Episcopal Church”. They saw themselves as both the heirs of the Reformation of the sixteenth century and of the continuing tradition of the Threefold Ministry of Bishop (Episcopos), Presbyter and Deacon. They were not, certainly not, Presbyterian as was, and is, the National Church of Scotland. Further, in the twentieth century, finding that “Protestant” was an embarrassment, especially socially for it classed this Church with the growing number of [blue-collar?] Protestant members of the supermarket of religions, this word in the title was dropped, and is rarely heard today. So most people do not know that the legal title of the denomination is “the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA.”
The adjective “Episcopal” or the noun “Episcopalian” came to be a means by which the distinctiveness and social standing of this Church/Denomination was preserved and conveyed in the USA. It made a claim both for historical and cultural depth as well as for social standing, with a certain apartness. And, of course, until very recently, this was matched by the presence as communicants of the Church of a significant members of the Supreme Court, Congress, White House and major corporations and educational institutions, not to mention the armed forces.
Unless my discernment is wrong, I see this “pride of name” prevalent amongst members of the Episcopal Church today, even, and regrettably, amongst those who classify themselves as “orthodox” and reckon others to be “revisionists.” “Episcopalian” is used both by the “orthodox” and the “revisionists” to distinguish those who remain in the Episcopal Church from those who have left to form “schismatic” churches. Those who remain are the real thing -- “Episcopalians” -- and those who depart become “Anglicans” and are certainly on no account any longer “Episcopalians”.
“Anglican”, used in a generic sense as if a generic drug, describes a religion emanating originally from the Church of England, that is available most places in the world. It does not have the particularities and distinctive features of the word “Episcopalian” as historically used in American polite society. This said, since “Anglican” is used by the co-religionists of Episcopalians abroad, the name “Anglican” is used by Episcopalians when it is deemed good and right to emphasize the connection with the rest of the world – thus the name “Anglican Communion Network” by the “orthodox” within the Episcopal Church.
Thus, while “Episcopalian” may simply be used as a description of a certain kind of churchgoer, it is often used, as also the adjective, “Episcopal”, by insiders as a form pride in a name, a tradition, a social standing and the like. Maybe they are not wholly aware of this and someone needs to tell them!
I think that this kind of pride was seen at the recent “Hope and a Future” Conference in Pittsburgh. On the first evening, in a crowded program, a two hour Eucharist was held; it included a great “fashion show” of bishops and clergy dressed in their regalia and all in procession and on show. It seemed as though they were saying, “Here we are! We are not the same as others; we are different; we are Episcopalians; no other denomination in the USA puts on a show like this; we have our special characteristics and here they are for all to see and take pride in.”
Now there was a big Eucharist planned for the Saturday morning and thus there was no need for this one after dinner (what about fasting?) on the Thursday in a short conference with an over-loaded program(in a context where local churches were offering early services each morning all the same). Yet, even Evangelicals who organized this Conference and who have never been famous for high liturgy, felt impelled to have this liturgical show. They had to exhibit the distinctives of Episcopaliansm. This is the thing to do even by those who speak of reform and renewal!
The pride is also I suggest seen in the names posted outside the buildings of local parishes and used daily by them in conversation. Instead of naming the parish in this way – St Hilda’s Church, Georgetown, [Episcopal] Diocese of Lafayette – the chosen way, even of the “orthodox” is nearly always “St Hilda’s Episcopal Church”. Why insert “Episcopal” between the name of the saint and what is dedicated in his or her name? The early tradition in the Colonies and then the USA was simply to put the name of the saint (or of Christ) and then the place – as is still the case in the C of E and Europe. But now the “brand” name is all important!
It is interesting that “the Episcopal Synod” of the early 1990s became “Forward in Faith North America” in the late 1990s, as it adopted the generic name from the UK! Before that time, however, its pride in being ‘Episcopal” served as one major factor in its not achieving the goals that its lay membership expected and worked for. Thus now it is a patch of what it was in 1989!
How much pride is there in the name “Episcopalian” amongst the “Evangelicals” who organized the Pittsburgh event?
Are they willing to give up the name wholly and completely and use the generic name only to describe themselves?
Will their clinging to the name, and its association with social acceptability, property, money and retirement benefits, be a means, as it apparently was with the Episcopal Synod in the early 1990s, of making them a people who cannot, by these impediments, be effective leaders of genuine reform, renewal and re-alignment?
Are they more Episcopalian than Anglican, preferring the trade name always to the generic name, except when traveling overseas?
Is one reason for clinging to the name with pride the fact that the Episcopal boat is still regarded as the best boat to fish from by those who place great emphasis on “the great commission”?
What are we all ready to give up for the kingdom of God and the Ecclesia of God?
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
posted by John at 10:06 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
“Hope and a Future” at Pittsburg, November 10-12
– reflections from Dr Peter Toon
The “hope and a future” conference was like a political rally, that is a godly rally, where speakers encouraged those present to be faithful as Christians and as Episcopalians or Anglicans. The 2,500 present saw themselves as the “orthodox” standing against the “revisionists” of the Episcopal Church. Most of them were Episcopalians but a few were from jurisdictions outside the Episcopal Church, groups now referred to by the Network, rather patronizingly as the “diaspora”!
They were told from the podium that a new era had dawned and that God was doing a new thing in their midst. They should see themselves as part of a renewal of the Anglican Way leading to re-alignment of the “orthodox” inside and outside the Episcopal Church. So they were as pioneers blazing a new trail for Anglicanism in North America. At the same time they were as conservationists, preserving that which is good in American Anglicanism for the future. Pre-eminently they were the people of the Book, God’s Word written, and they must not look to any other authority (such as contemporary Experience via the social and psychological sciences).
Yet the way ahead for this volunteer, enthusiastic army was not made wholly clear. The goal it is to reach, the route it is to take, the weapons it is to use, the polity it is to assume and the formularies (under the Word of God written) it is to adopt were left (deliberately?) vague or unmentioned. Why? Probably because the US generals of this volunteer army seem to work on the assumption that the goal, the route and the polity, let alone the formularies, cannot be specified until after the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in June 06 and maybe not till after the next Lambeth Conference of 2008. Thus it appears that this army will only ever go on the offensive when its generals in Pittsburgh decide that what they aim to achieve (which plan seems not to have been shared in any detail with the warriors in the army) cannot be gained by the present vague policy of holding their ground, watching and waiting. In other words, they seem to be hoping that God will be present miraculously in judgment and grace at the General Convention and that there will be seen there the beginnings of a turning away from the innovatory sexual agenda and thus “orthodoxy” (as they understand it) will become maintainable in the Episcopal Church again. Then they will not have to march anywhere at all.
Now this situation of an army that stays in barracks to defend what is presently held, contrasts vividly with the powerful message of the guest speaker, the Baptist pastor, Rick Warren, who is well known internationally from his advocacy of the purpose-driven Christian life and the purpose-driven church. He advocates whole-hearted commitment to clear goals, based on the kingdom of God, and consecration to the Lord in the pursuit of them. His army does not stay in camp but is out conquering for Jesus! While much of what he said harmonized with what the Archbishops from Uganda and Nigeria said, it seemed to belong to a different approach and mindset to that of the leadership of “The Network.” While he is bold they are cautious; where he is clear, they are vague, for they are, after all, Episcopalians, who have absorbed some of the compromising doctrine and ethos that they now oppose specifically on one front in its doctrine and practice of sexuality.
I could not help contrasting this Conference with a similar one in Fort Worth in 1989, to which I came from London with the then Bishop of London, Graham Leonard and his chaplain. The Texas one was organized by anglo-catholics and the Pittsburgh one by evangelicals but they were similar. The Episcopal Synod Congress raised high expectations amongst the troops from the parishes but the energy and drive created at Fort Worth in 1989 soon dissipated, primarily, it would seem, because the generals (the anglo-catholic bishops of the Episcopal Synod of the ECUSA) did not lead their army anywhere at all except back to barracks! They allowed the Episcopal Church to determine the agenda and the rules of the warfare and the movement fizzled out! I fear that much the same will happen to this evangelical movement, even though it has the support of overseas archbishops. It is not sufficiently “purpose driven” to inspire, march and win decisive battles for Jesus.
What could the Pittsburgh leadership of this 2005 movement do to let it be known that they intend to be purpose- driven for the recovery of a biblically based and Holy Spirit energized Anglican Way, perhaps even a new Province in North America?
Here are a few starters:
1. All the bishops of this movement could declare that they are not in Eucharistic communion with the Presiding Bishops and all members of the House of Bishops who have clearly adopted the innovatory sexual doctrine and practices. Let them really mean this and do so humbly and graciously but firmly. This will really clear the decks and truly set in motion a godly war and allow a purpose-driven movement to march forward with a clear goal.
2. All the bishops of this movement could declare themselves true Episcopalians and Anglicans by adopting the historic Formularies of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA, and in so doing declare that the 1979 Prayer Book is only a Book of Varied Services and is not and can never be the Doctrinal Formulary of the Network. The Network could without ambiguity declare its genuine Anglican credentials both at the top and amongst the troops/ Whether high church or low church, the worship, doctrine and discipline could become recognizably Anglican (Reformed Catholic) and not (as now) more like a generic Evangelical Charismatic mixture. [To this end the Network could authorize a truly contemporary English form of the classic BCP of the Anglican Way, the BCP of 1662, and while doing this do the extra work to provide the same for the USA 1928 BCP. Let the troops begin to use the military handbook of the Anglican Way, the classic BCP, whether in the traditional English or in a good Contemporary equivalent.]
3. The Bishops could together covenant with each other to stand together and support each other and to commit to clear goals so that the Network is a purpose-driven agency for the Church of God. That is, they could determine not to allow others, “the revisionists”, in General Convention or elsewhere effectively to create an agenda, aim and objective for them. Certainly they could take advice from godly bishops overseas but they could actually get on with the work of godly leadership themselves as they look unto the Lord, forgetting their status and pension plan and retirement expectations.
The evidence suggests that the troops wait to be commanded to go to war! But they need to follow generals who have a strategy and are prepared to fight the good fight. If they are not commanded soon, they will lose heart and return to their former lives and cares.
petertoon@msn.com November 14, 2005
posted by John at 10:47 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Orthodoxy – realistic, sound and generous
An attempt to provoke helpful thinking, resolutions and actions
Speaking of American churches, we are all familiar with the contrasts made between:
Liberal and Conservative (whatever that means in any given context – e.g., within Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism; or within Protestantism in general!)
Progressive and Orthodox (whatever that means in any given context –e.g. in Episcopalianism or Methodism; or in Roman Catholicism or Protestantism in general!);
And also between: Catholic and Protestant; Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic;
Eastern Orthodox and Protestant; emerging churches and churches; and so on.
In this context,
Let us consider the general use of “orthodox” rather than its unique use by the ancient hierarchical and liturgical Churches attached to the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople & Moscow.
Usually in popular speech & in reporting by journalists, “orthodox” is contrasted with “progressive” or “liberal” and refers to those in any given denomination or tradition who actually seek to preserve intact some or all of the foundational positions and doctrines of that particular grouping. So orthodoxy becomes in any given denominational context not only the basic doctrines of Christianity which all conservative Christians hold in common, but also the extra denominational distinctives (e.g., a doctrine of the Lord’s Supper or of Baptism or of Spiritual Gifts) which make that grouping unique or at least different from others.
Furthermore, for the sake of clarity in communication orthodoxy refers only to dogmas, doctrines and positions held and professed, rather than to exemplary or right behavior (for which ortho-praxis or other like words are used).
Experience teaches that it is often difficult for any given grouping internally to make a distinction in value and importance between the doctrines that they hold in common with others (e.g., that Jesus is the Christ and Savior) and what are called their [denominational] distinctives (e.g., their doctrine of how Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper).
Would it be a great advance towards Christian charity and unity if the so-called “orthodox” of the churches could agree on what they all actually hold in common, and believe to be essentials, call this common doctrine orthodoxy, and then recognize their own distinctives as being important to them but not of the same ultimate importance and thus ought never to be a barrier to fellowship between them? Yes, it would, but in many cases this “advance” would prove impossible because some would not be able to separate in value or importance what they hold in common (e.g. that God is Holy Trinity) with what they hold in difference (e.g., that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth; or that the local congregation is sovereign and autonomous).
We may observe that it is probably impossible to create a local church, even a house church, that is founded only and simply upon an orthodoxy which is simply basic Christianity (e.g. the Apostles’ Creed), for in the necessary acts of worship, of organization, of mission and evangelism, distinctives are adopted and developed by the congregation. These arise not out of ill-will but in the reality of being a Christian congregation. Once they arise it is then difficult to prize them apart from what was originally thought to be basic Christianity.
Each of us, as an enfleshed human being, needs to belong to a congregation which has form and is embodied in cultural expressions (we cannot just belong to an idea)! Yet also we need to realize that there is difference between true orthodox doctrines, or essential doctrines, on the one side and, on the other, the local distinctives, be they ways of expressing the essentials in worship or behavior, or means of being Christians as a group which does things together. The differences will often be a fine line which requires spiritual discernment to see.
Now this task of discernment and differentiation, when taken on by those who see themselves as orthodox, is made the more difficult for not only is there within American Christianity a massive variety of groupings and thus also of distinctives, but there is a “progressive” or “liberal” camp which is often near to the “orthodox” camp and thus its agenda (e.g., blessing of same-sex couples) deeply affects the “orthodox” in one way or another. [And of course, and this is a big topic, there is the general influence of politics and culture, economics and social settings, upon churches and their teachings and agendas.]
The more one thinks about these things, the more one may be inclined the more intensely to pray for the Parousia, “Lord Jesus come quickly,” for one senses one lives in a big mess and that the unity of the Church of God will never be a visible unity this side of the Second Coming.
Or, one may take comfort from the American doctrines of capitalism, freedom, competition and individualism and savor the great variety as a true reflection of the American way and the best way for the churches to be this side of the Final Judgment.
Or perhaps one may be attracted away from the variety and confusion to either or both of those two Churches, the Orthodox and the Roman, which have been around since the apostolic age and who claim to be the real and true Church of Jesus Christ!
Or one may go off to read G.K. Chesterton’s book, Orthodoxy, and then try to forget all the problems.
Or one may live and serve humbly and faithfully within one of the “streams” (e.g., Lutheran or Anglican) recognizing that all baptized believers, who are united by the Holy Spirit in faith and love to the Lord Jesus and thus to the Father, are actually children of God and members of the Body of Christ, the Household of God.
Well motivated people of sound mind continue to respond differently to the search for Orthodoxy in the USA! One cannot, unless one is God himself, be sure as to which of the alternatives is even best, let alone right! Or can one?
November 8, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 10:56 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Commitment to Christianity Depends On How It Is Measured
November 8, 2005
(Ventura, CA) – Four out of every five adults in the United States consider themselves to be Christian. How committed are they to the Christian faith? It depends on how you measure commitment. That’s the conclusion of a new report from The Barna Group, based on nationwide surveys with a random sample of 4015 people conducted this year. The research explored eight different measures of people’s commitment to their faith and found that the outcomes ranged from a low of 16% to a high of 72%.
Eight Measures of Commitment
The indicators of commitment that showed the broadest attachment were those that assessed people’s psychological commitment to their chosen faith. Those types of measures included the following:
· “Have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?” (72% said “yes”)
· “Your religious faith is very important in your life today.” (71% strongly agreed)
· “Would you describe yourself as deeply spiritual?” (60% said “yes”)
The research found that more demanding involvement in practical forms of Christianity generated lower scores. Those measures included the following:
· “The single, most important purpose of your life is to love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul.” (62% strongly agreed)
· “Would you describe yourself as a full-time servant of God?” (53% said “yes”)
· “How committed are you to the Christian faith?” (42% said they are “absolutely committed”)
The lowest scores were recorded for the pair of indicators that required the most intense level of participation in the Christian faith.
· 29% had attended a church service, prayed to God and read from the Bible during the past week.
· 16% said the highest priority in their life was their faith.
Who’s Most Committed?
A demographic analysis of the eight measures of commitment showed highly consistent trends in relation to gender, age, region, ethnicity and faith subgroups.
Women were more likely than men to express a higher level of commitment to the Christian faith for all eight of the factors studied. On average, women were 36% more likely to register commitment regarding the factor in question. A majority of women expressed commitment in relation to six of the eight factors; in comparison, a majority of men noted personal investment in their faith in relation to just three of the eight measures.
Adults who were 40 or younger – i.e., those in the Baby Bust or Mosaic generations – were less likely than older adults to indicate commitment to their faith in relation to each of the eight measures. In addition, the survey found that the older a person was, the more likely they were to be committed to the Christian faith in connection with six out of the eight measures tested.
Residents of the South were the most likely to express significant commitment on seven of the eight measures. Adults residing in the Northeast and West were the lowest on the commitment scale for seven of the eight measures.
Blacks emerged as the ethnic group most likely to be committed to Christianity. They had the highest score of any of the four major ethnic groups in relation to seven of the eight measures tested. On average, Blacks were 39% more likely to register commitment than were whites, and 53% more likely than Hispanics. Asians were lowest on the commitment continuum in relation to seven of the eight measures. In fact, there was only one measure for which a majority of Asians exhibited commitment: 52% said their religious faith is very important to them, lagging the 68% among whites, 72% among Hispanics, and 89% among African-Americans.
Out of more than sixty subgroups studied in this research, evangelical Christians were the top-ranked people group for each of the eight measures of faith commitment. The most dramatic differences were found in relation to making their faith the highest priority in their life (55% of evangelicals claimed to do so, versus 16% of the population at-large) and demonstrating an active faith (73% had attended church, read the Bible and prayed during the preceding week, compared to 29% nationally).
Protestant adults had higher scores than did Catholics on all eight measures of commitment. On average, Protestants were 66% more likely than Catholics to say they were committed to their faith in the manner posed by the survey question.
Interpreting the Findings
George Barna, whose company conducted the research, believes that the findings reveal several insights about America’s faith. “For starters, it appears that most Americans like the security and the identity of the label ‘Christian’ but resist the biblical responsibilities that are associated with that identification. For most Americans, being a Christian is more about image than action. Further,” he continued, “researchers and those who use research data must be careful how they portray people’s spiritual commitment. Such descriptions are greatly affected by the way in which commitment is measured.”
Barna also encouraged Christian leaders to reflect on the implications of the relative lack of commitment among young adults and key ethnic groups. “Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing ethnic groups in the country, but they are also substantially less committed to Christianity than are Caucasians relative to six of the eight measures tested. Add to that the widespread complacency toward Christianity among people under 40 and we have what amounts to a crisis of commitment facing the Church of the future.”
Source of This Information
The data reported in this summary are based upon telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 4015 adults conducted in 2005. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample in each of these surveys is ±1.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All non-institutionalized adults in the 48 contiguous states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents in the survey sample corresponds to the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. The data were subjected to slight statistical weighting procedures to calibrate the survey base to national demographic proportions. Households selected for inclusion in the survey sample received multiple callbacks to increase the probability of obtaining a representative distribution of adults.
“Evangelicals” are a subset of born again Christians in Barna surveys. In addition to meeting the born again criteria, in which people say they have made “a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today” and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, evangelicals also meet seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; contending that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; stating that Satan exists; maintaining that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; asserting that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; saying that the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Further, respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “evangelical.” Being classified as “evangelical” is not dependent upon any church or denominational affiliation or involvement. Evangelicals represent 7% of the adult population.
The “Baby Bust” refers to the generation of people born from 1965 through 1983. The “Mosaic” generation includes all people born from 1984 through 2002. In this study, only those Mosaics born from 1984 through 1987 were included – that is, those who were 18 or older.
The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) is a privately held, for-profit corporation that conducts primary research, produces audio, visual and print media, and facilitates the healthy spiritual development of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna has been conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors since 1984. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, bi-weekly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna web site (www.barna.org). © The Barna Group, Ltd, 2005.
posted by John at 12:24 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Monday, November 07, 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. Please note that 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.
THERE ARE SIX COPIES LEFT AS OF November 7, 2005
TO RESERVE ONE CALL 1 800 727 1928 and speak to Debbie BEFORE POSTING A CHECK.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 1:43 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Revolution is occurring, says George Barna
George Barna is the head of a social research unit, which has specialized recently in the study of American evangelicals. In his book, Revolution (Tyndale House, 2005), Barna is no longer the social scientist describing what careful research has shown about the changing ideals and pursuits of evangelicals, but he has become the advocate for a particular movement in the USA that he obviously believes is important, very important. In fact he appears to have joined it and wants to do all he can to help this movement, especially the “revolutionaries” on their journey. So at time it is not clear where his social science research is speaking and where as the preacher of “revolution” is speaking.
To understand what he has found and what he supports, it is important that we recognize what he means by “church/Church.” He states: “I use the words church (small c) and Church (capital C) in very different ways. The distinction is critical. The small c church refers to the congregation-based faith experience, which involves a formal structure, a hierarchy of leadership, and a specific group of believers. The term Church, on the other hand, refers to all believers in Jesus Christ, comprising the population of heaven-bound individuals who are connected by their faith in Christ, regardless of their local church connections or involvement. Some hail this as the Church universal, as opposed to the church local. As you will see, the Revolution is designed to advance the Church and to redefine the church” (page x).
The revolutionaries are usually people who are dissatisfied with the local church or with local churches because they cannot find in them, however hard they try, an authentic pursuit of and commitment to a genuine Christianity, wherein there is a vital relationship with God through Jesus, and a consecrated life of obedience and holiness. They find in Scripture descriptions of the Church and of Christian living that cause them to look for and desire much more than the restrictions of the local church allow. And they are obsessed with the idea of being much better and more useful to God than they are now.
So mini-movements have been generated of people seeking to find alternative ways of serving God then in the local church with its limited and restricting agenda and activity. Thus there are cells, home fellowships, cyberspace meetings and the like, as well as “groups” within the local church, wherein serious people seek to become better Christian disciples of Jesus the really true “Revolutionary.”
So the Revolution has begun and, Barna predicts, will intensify, affecting America from the bottom up, as it were, as local groups function as “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” in their own communities. The number of committed Christians will grow but the number and size of local churches (of the old kind) will diminish, for the vital Christians will be in all kinds of loose organizations and groupings. Yet the moral and spiritual health of the nation will improve through their presence. Further, this Revolution will qualify as one of the great spiritual “awakenings” within the USA.
Comment.
I do not know how seriously to take the contents of this book. This is because so much of it is Barna the preacher and advocate commending his view of “church/Church”, and, in proportion, so little is actually basic research material/facts that the reader can consider in their own right.
His use of the New Testament to describe the Church seems to be limited virtually to the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. But are not the teachings of Paul, James and John in their epistles also important for understanding what is the local church and what is the universal Church?
His confidence in human nature within the revolutionaries seems to be much higher than history and experience would recommend. Even the committed revolutionaries suffer from original sin, from the temptations to individualism and idiosyncrasies, from the possibility of many sins of omission and commission, and so on. How can Barna be sure that they will not simple add to the vastness of competitive Christian groups within the present supermarket of religions in the USA? How does he know their energy will go into the pursuit of holiness and the service of man in the name of Jesus?
And what about the connection or relation of these emerging mini-movements of revolutionaries to the variety of groups, house-churches, cells and the like which already exist and are associated with, for example, the “generous orthodoxy” movement (which seeks a kind of non-denominational form of Christianity that is missional locally, seeking to show practical love, especially to the poor).
Overall, my judgment tends to be that Dr Barna has gone much too far in his claim that there really is a Revolution, and in his predictions of what this Revolution will soon become and achieve. Let us remember that there have always been those, whom we may call the remnant, within the existing churches or synagogues who have longed for a deeper, richer and more substantial expression of Christian faith within themselves as persons and within the larger structure of the churches. He has discerned such within the American evangelical churches and appears to have made too much of his discovery because of what is his own personal desire for Christian growth in the USA.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 1:39 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 1 comments
Sexuality: Where should the line be drawn?
A discussion starter from Peter Toon
Few would disagree with the observation that the Church in the West in this post-modern culture has a very different estimate of what are right goals and necessary principles of sexuality than did the Church in former times, especially the patristic era, but even the Victorian era.
Few also would disagree with the observation that the approach to sexuality in today’s Church is profoundly affected by the therapeutic culture which is now endemic in western thought and feeling. For most of us a primary purpose of life is to be happy. Happiness is an end in itself, rather than a product of something else (e.g., of doing what is right, or good, or one’s duty and vocation). Self-fulfillment and self-realization are seen as important ends in connection with happiness.
The Early Church and Sex
Few also would disagree with the point that the ideal in the Early Church was that of chastity, and thus the virgin (female and male) was the symbol of purity. People today find it hard to understand why married love was not the symbol for the Early Church. Their difficulty is in part because they live in a therapeutic culture.
The only sure way that the Church in a self-indulgent, immoral society could present the Christian sexual ethic to itself and to the world in a positive and dynamic way was to emphasize, as the ideal of what the Lord loved to see, the way of purity, chastity and virginity. This kept the mind and vision focused and gave moral energy to the resisting of temptation. It did not mean that marriage was sinful but it did mean that those who by grace were enabled to do so should be virgins and be united as it were to the Lord in purity and service. By this ideal and with this standard, the Church could declare with integrity that fornication, sodomy and adultery were sins, which if not repented of, would keep even baptized persons out of the kingdom of heaven. Further, the Church was able to make Christian marriage sacramental as a one flesh union of a man and woman until that union was broken by death. Further, the purpose of holy matrimony was mutual comfort and procreation, as well as the avoiding of fornication.
Of course, there were many failures and there were multiple scandals and there was hypocrisy, for human beings are not only sinners but sinful; BUT there was also the divine offer of forgiveness to those who were penitent. Importantly, forgiveness did not reduce standards but it lifted up those who had fallen. And there was a penitential system in place to deal with this pastoral problem of the weak and the fallen in a way which did not compromise the ideal.
So there was no compromise. The Church preached and asked for the highest of standards and believed the grace of God sufficient to help people reach them. In this context, it made sense to proclaim that adultery, fornication and sodomy were sinful and to deal with them as such in the penitential system.
Contemporary Liberal Denominations
Today, the Church, especially the main-line liberal denominations like the Episcopal, asks for the lowest standards and expects even less then these! Deeply affected by the therapeutic culture, the Church accepts in practice if not in doctrine all sexual unions which claim to be seeking self-fulfillment and based on “love” and “faithfulness’ – e.g., in serial monogamy, opposite sex and same-sex partnerships. The ideal now is not virginity and chastity but rather self-realization, self-fulfillment and happiness therein. Any “love” that leads in this direction is acceptable for is not God as God “Love”? What is wrong and sinful today is “loveless” sexual intimacy and relationships!
The Evangelical Stance
However, there are those within the liberal denominations (e.g., the Network in the ECUSA) who believe that a line can be drawn and maintained in the contemporary churches at homosexual practice (not homosexual orientation as such).
That is, the Church proclaims the ideal of marriage between a woman and a man as a life-long partnership and teaches that all other forms of sexual intimacy are wrong. However, this ideal is not taught as a divine command or real standard but as that to which the faithful should strive and if they reach it, then congratulation! If they fail there is divorce and remarriage, even serial monogamy, for their right to fulfillment of their sexual drive and desires is paramount in a therapeutic culture.
In this system, wherein there is not any kind of penitential system or the hope of one, but only local therapeutic “counseling”, the inevitable result is that it is very difficult to teach against and prevent the widespread living together of men and women in short-term or long –term partnerships either before marriage or as a substitute for marriage. After all, they only seek personal fulfillment and happiness in a loving relationship. It is less difficult to argue against same-sex partnerships for they appear to be contrary to nature and to gut feelings of what is decent and right, not to mention biblical commands. Yet as same-sex unions are increasingly recognized by law and by culture, opposing them, specially when nice people are involved, gets more difficult day by day for the conservative Christian to do.
Conclusion
It would appear that only the Church which has the ideal of Virginity, together with a penitential [not a counseling] system, has any hope in the therapeutic culture of the West of maintaining a Christian doctrine and practice of biblical sexuality and sexual relations! A modern denomination, or part thereof, which has lowered the bar to lifelong marriage as an ideal (but has not made the ideal a true standard and divine requirement) and works with counseling will, like the city of New Orleans, see its walls continually broken by the floodtide of the modern sexual culture.
November 7, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
posted by John at 1:10 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Saturday, November 05, 2005
What the Prayer Book Society Is
THE PRAYER BOOK SOCIETY OF THE U.S.A.
P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128-0220
1-800-727-1928 & www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928
- ACCEPTS that there is one Book of Common Prayer which has appeared in many editions, of which the first was in 1549.
- SEEKS to keep in print the latest American edition of this Book, the edition of 1928.
- ENCOURAGES the use with understanding not only of the American edition, but also of the Canadian (1962) and the English (1662).
- RECOGNIZES that some recent Prayer Books which bear the title of “Common Prayer” are not editions of the authentic, one Book of Common Prayer, but are in fact Books of varied services and thus have the wrong title.
- BELIEVES that the Formularies of the Anglican Way are the authentic Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the Articles.
- PRODUCES books, booklets, and CDs to educate people in the nature and content of Common Prayer ( www.anglicanmarketplace.com).
- PUBLISHES in fine leather the Altar Edition of the American edition of The Book of Common Prayer (1928).[call 1-800-727-1928 for information]
- COMMUNICATES with its members and friends bi-monthly through its magazine, Mandate (call 1-800-727-1928 for a copy).
- WORKS both within the Anglican Communion and also amongst Anglicans outside it.
- COOPERATES with similar Societies in Canada, Great Britain and Australia.
- INVITES people who care for the integrity of the Anglican Way to join the Society and thereby seek to keep Anglican Churches worshipping the Lord our God in the beauty of holiness, in spirit and in truth.
posted by John at 9:45 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Escaping from the Three B’s
Are too many American churches (that is congregations who worship in a consecrated building) ruled by the Three B’s?
Do the people within them need to escape from the throttle of the Three B’s?
If you are interested in the answer, please read on!
By the kindness of the Rector of St Luke’s Seattle, I attended a Conference on “Generous Orthodoxy” in Seattle in the first week of November 2005. About 400 people were there and they were mostly from non-denominational groups. In fact many of them had apparently left denominational churches (from Catholic to Pentecostal) in order to discover who is Jesus and to practice what Christianity and the local church (meaning people rather than building) are really and truly all about. Their focus appears to be on Jesus, on a simple spirituality to know God through Jesus, and on loving the neighbor through local community outreach. Their creed is what they have come to call “generous orthodoxy” which is nothing to do with the dogma of the Early Church! Rather, it is a readiness to embrace insights and practices from the wide variety of Christian traditions of devotion and spirituality that have existed and still exist in the USA. To affirm all rather than to defend one and to be generous to one another and especially to the needy and disadvantaged locally. The expression “generous orthodoxy” is from the title of a recent book by Brian MacLaren, who is a key person/mentor in this movement.
One female minister (who with her husband pastors one of these local non-denominational churches that does not own property) described her “journey” from the stress of the three B’s to the liberation of the three C’s. In her denominational church where she was a clergy-person she had to think continually about the BUDGET (and the weekly collection and covenants), the BUILDING PROGRAM (whether new facilities or maintaining the existing ones) and BUTTS on seats (how many people attended?). On Sunday evening and Monday morning she was regularly “stressed out.” Instead of looking to Jesus and loving God and the neighbor, she was bound to the Three B’s and their out-workings and this was bondage.
Now that she has left this bondage she is able to focus on and count other things such as Connections, Collaboration and Conversation. Now the church is people who are connected to the neighborhood where they meet, who are able to collaborate with any others in specific projects long or short term, and engage in dialogue and conversation with people of all kinds about God and love and anything else, without the pressure to seek to make them disciples and church members right away!
The point about this “generous orthodoxy movement” is that it seeks to be non-judgmental, to be practical rather than cerebral, to emphasize actions more than words, and thus to be a very mixed bag in terms of the great variety of local experiments at being “the real church” of people who love Jesus. Right now it seems to be generating a lot of interest amongst younger, caring Christians.
Running parallel to this “generous orthodoxy” movement is another which has been very recently described by George Barna in his book, Revolution (Tyndale House), He describes a related but different phenomenon of a small but growing number of evangelicals who are not satisfied with the quality of Christian vision, character and vision being taught and commended in the majority of the evangelical churches (congregations with hold buildings). They are desirous of a fuller and deeper Christian life and consecration and they are forming a variety of kinds of associations, groupings and fellowships to foster this. And most of them are under 45 and are devoted family people.
Both movements are found either outside or only very loosely attached to the many evangelical denominations and institutions of the USA. And there is obviously some overlap between them for neither is organized from a center and thus at the local level one group may easily see itself as belonging to both, indeed of seeing the two as but one general phenomenon. Both seem to have consciously recognized the power of post-modernity and the culture it creates, with the intention to work creatively within it. However, those described by Barna seem to be more specifically committed to biblical themes of personal holiness and consecration at home and work than those embracing “generous orthodoxy.” At the same time, the latter seem more specifically committed to practical action on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, not abroad, but in their patch.
Whether either or both movements will be around in a decade is a question I cannot answer. However, my suspicion is that the high day of the evangelical church growth movement is ended and this movement is slowing down. It is slowing down because there is a significant, growing yearning for growth in maturity of faith, hope and love rather than a one-sided emphasis on growth in numbers (Butts in seats!). The small “church” of 100 members even 50 members or less is becoming attractive again – a fellowship which has a definite mission within the locality wherein it is placed, a mission more than evangelism, a mission of service to and within the local communities, especially to the needy therein.
We know that the average size of Anglican/Episcopal churches in the USA is well below a hundred. Regrettably so often these churches are so overcome by two of the B’s – the Budget and the Building – that they do not have sufficient energy left to go after more Butts for seats. [And those evangelicals which do go after more Butts tend to make the entry of converts into the church rather easy, if for no other reason than that the internal standards are not high to start with!]
Maybe these liturgical congregations with buildings can learn from the two movements described above without actually joining them! That is, to place growth in maturity in Christ and love of the neighbor in local practical ways as high priorities and thereby embrace the C’s – to make new connections in the neighborhood and community, to collaborate with people of like mind, and to have wider and deeper conversation with a widening circle. Certainly they must avoid being tired and stressed out by the B’s.
November 4, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 9:35 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Too short? A consideration of Dr. Paul Zahl as systematic theologian.
A short essay written at the request of several “orthodox Anglicans”
Usually a book with the title, “Systematic Theology,” has many pages and sometimes comes in several volumes. Yet Dr Paul F.M. Zahl, now Dean of Trinity School for Ministry in PA, published a few years ago a book entitled, A Short Systematic Theology (Wm. B. Eerdmans). The text does not take up more than 100 pages! And in his preface he argues that there is real merit in such a short book (which I guess is about 40,000 words)- after all is not the New Testament itself a short book.
I ask myself after reading it:
Does his brevity prevent him from doing justice to his subject? I think so.
Does his brevity open him up to the charge of denying Articles I,II, & V of The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and thus of advocating error or heresy? I think so.
I think so, but I am not sure on both counts.
The impression he makes is of a dynamic Protestant theologian who is committed to the heart of the Lutheran Reformation (justification by faith alone), to the Protestant doctrine of penal substitution in the death of Jesus on the Cross, and to the insistence that true saving faith issues in works of love, and a life of true moral and spiritual freedom. At the same time, he causes one to think that he has doubts as to the veracity and usefulness of the Church dogma of the Holy Trinity and the Person of Christ as also of the need for carefully defined doctrines of the place of the Church and Sacraments in the economy of salvation.
Now to the content of his case, which is attractively presented.
Zahl insists that theology must begin from the bottom as it were and work upwards. He does not mean from contemporary human experience (like the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and his advisers), but from the accounts of the historical Jesus found in the Four Gospels. So he starts with Jesus and notes wherein he is unique within Judaism. Then he focuses on his passion and crucifixion, which he shows provides the full and universal Atonement for human sins and sinfulness.
Further, and importantly, he interprets the death of Jesus on the Cross as penal, substitutionary Atonement, even as the Protestant Reformers explained and preached this doctrine. Yet the way he writes of this is not in sixteenth-century style but as one who has learnt much from his recent periods of study in Germany.
Then he proceeds by accepting the apostolic claim that Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven; and, on this basis, proceeds to ask how the same Jesus, now exalted, is present with us (“Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the age”) when in fact he is actually absent from us as the historical Jesus. His answer is perhaps surprising – not in sacraments, not in preaching of the Word, not in church fellowship, not in the gifts of the Spirit etc., but he is found in “works of love”. Here he connects with the Protestant emphasis on justification by faith expressed practically in deeds of love. “I would not work my soul to save/ for that my Lord has done./ But I would work like any slave/ for love of God’s dear Son.”
It is only when he has presented all this that he suggests that it is appropriate to consider the full identity of Jesus, the crucified and ascended One. The identity of Jesus appears from what he achieves. And this is presented very briefly. For him, the church dogma of the Incarnation (Jesus is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human) is apparently useful but not necessary for it is too speculative.
With regard to the Church doctrine of the Trinity, he seems to be skeptical as to both its truth and its usefulness. For he says it is speculation based upon speculation (i.e., it is built upon the dogma of the Person of Christ). However, in his brief treatment he does not distinguish between the dynamic, biblically-based “economic” Trinity and the ”ontological” Trinity of church dogma (God as God is in and unto himself as Three Persons, One Godhead, in his own infinity and eternity) The biblical portrayal of the Father sending the Son into space and time to be incarnate by the action of the Holy Spirit, and then of the movement in the Spirit, through the Son to the Father in the sacrifice of prayer and good works of the disciples of Jesus, would seem to be a major theme of the New Testament. Is it not the case that for the New Testament there is the double “flow”: (a) from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit come creation, revelation, salvation and redemption and (b) to the Father through the Son and with the Spirit flow worship and service, prayer and good works?
What Protestant Reformers learned after their discovery of “justification by faith alone” was that the church dogma of the Trinity and Person of Christ (for this see the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils) in the pious, devout mind provides a paradigm which profoundly assists in the understanding and interpreting of Scripture unto holiness and salvation. In this realization, they joined Fathers such as Augustine and Bernard, Thomas Aquinas and Anselm.
Dr Zahl also reveals his departure from the full Protestant and classical Anglican tradition by his embracing and defending of the doctrine of God as passible, the God who in his deity, is subject to change of feelings and moods. It is one thing, we may recall, to attribute to the human nature of the Lord Jesus changing moods and feelings; it is yet another thing to deny the long-held doctrine of the impassibility of God the Father (see Article I).
Much more could be said about this little book for it does have the merit of being both readable and gently provocative of serious thought. At the same time, it is impossible to tell from It what value for salvation Dr Zahl places upon the historic Liturgy of the Church (wherein church dogma most carefully influences the content and style of prayers), the recital of the ecumenical Creed, the visible Church wherein are preached the Word and the Sacraments administered, and, as an Anglican, the classic Anglican Formularies (the authentic BCP, Ordinal and Articles). Would he agree that you cannot have God as your Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour without having the Church as your mother?
A final thought. In the “old days” at least in England, the fact of being the author of this book would disqualify him from teaching doctrine in one of the conservative evangelical theological Colleges in the Church of England (e.g., Oak Hill College, London) or being on the Board of the Church Society or the Church Pastoral Aid Society. I say “old days” for things have changed a lot in England as in the USA since the 1970s within “evangelical Anglicanism.” It is not clear to me now what in fact “evangelicals” actually believe for usually they do not accept or even study the Thirty-Nine Articles as a source of Anglican doctrine and also sit lightly upon the classical dogma of the first four ecumenical Councils.
November 3, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 2:48 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Ordinal – woman bishop?
A friendly word addressed to fellow users and lovers of The Book of Common Prayer (1662)
The Ordinal, usually bound together with The Book of Common Prayer and The Articles of Religion as one book, is a Formulary of the Church of England and of the Anglican Way. It sets forth the form of doctrine of the Ministry of the Church, which is Threefold, that of Deacon, Priest [Presbyter] and Bishop.
When the Ordinal of the Church of England was created in 1550, as a book written in English and based upon Scripture and medieval Latin texts, there was never any intention that a women could be or would be admitted to any of the three Offices. However, social conditions change, the mind of [parts of] the Church of God change, and thus, in the twenty-first century, women have been ordained as Deacons and Priests in the Church of England (and also in other provinces of the Anglican Communion).
However, with the real possibility that women priests may be consecrated as bishops, even archbishops, in the next decade, there are some persons who, having either supported or not being opposed to the ordination of women as priests, now have grave doubts about their possible consecration as bishops. Reasons for this concern vary – from a strong biblical doctrine of the “headship of the male”, through the traditional catholic teaching of the Bishop as a successor of the apostles and an icon of Christ Jesus, to the practical question of whether it will really work in terms of loyalty and obedience to a female bishop.
The Forward in Faith Movement is totally opposed to the consecrating of a women as a bishop and has proposed and provided the basic legislation for a third province in the Church of England, wherein are no female clergy at all. And the evangelical Church Society has given general support to this proposal.
But what about those who do still use The Book of Common Prayer and take seriously its position (with the Ordinal and Articles) as Formulary of the Church of England? How should they think and act?
Here I want to suggest that to be committed to the Formularies and interpreting them in the most generous way does not allow one to support the consecration of a woman as a bishop, even it if allows one to support the ordination of a woman as a deacon and priest.
What do I mean? Here I must invite my reader to read carefully first of all the text entitled, “The Form and Manner of Ordering of Priests.” In reading this I also invite you to follow the old convention that “he” can stand for “he or she”. As you read through you will notice that the candidates for the Order of Priesthood are first of all called “persons”, then “servants” and then “brethren”(which can mean brothers and sisters”). In the address by the Bishop they are also called “messengers, watchmen and stewards of the Lord”. In the questions from the Bishop there is one which may be taken as being addressed only to man, for it may be taken as presupposing he is head of a family; but in different social conditions today the question also makes sense as addressed to a woman (“to frame a family according to the doctrine of Christ”).Then in the Prayer before Ordination and the words of ordination the text nowhere specifically states (even if it originally assumed) that it is a man that is being ordained.
So one may claim that, in and of itself and by itself, the Ordinal does not specifically state that the Order of Priesthood is solely and only for male candidates. While it may assume such, it does not clearly declare such. So in this sense a generous benefit of doubt may be allowed.
Now let us turn to “The Form of Ordaining or Consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop.” Is this service like the previous one in that while it assumes that the Bishop will be a man it never specifically states this to be required?
The answer in this case is NO.
If we allow the convention that “he” may be “she or he” then we conclude that much of the text appears to be of the same kind as for the ordaining of priests. Yet there are a few features of the service that appear to require that the candidate be a man.
First of all, the Epistle is from 1 Timothy 3:1ff, where the text reads: “If a man desire the office of Bishop…. A Bishop must be the husband of one wife…” Then, secondly, in the presentation of the candidate to the Archbishop the words are: “we present unto you this godly and well-learned man to be ordained and consecrated Bishop.” In the Litany are inserted these words: “That it may please thee to bless this our Brother elected…” In the questions from the Archbishop the candidate is addressed as , “Brother…”
So, it would appear that it is impossible to deduce from the Ordinal, even on a generous interpretation, that a woman (even if she is legitimately a priest) can be elevated to the office of bishop. Now, a canon could be passed by the General Synod to add to canon law which would effectively state, “notwithstanding the natural and literal interpretation of the Ordinal, a woman may be a candidate for the office of bishop.” However, for those who have a high view of the Ordinal as Formulary (and containing both the teaching of Scripture and the witness of Tradition) such a change would not be convincing or acceptable.
Thus I conclude that the leadership of Prayer Book Societies are bound by their commitment to the Formularies to oppose the ordination and consecration of women as bishops; and, as a corollary of this, to support ways for faithful churchmen to remain in good faith in the Church, if and when the innovation is implemented. In England this may mean giving support to the proposal for a Third Province.
November 1, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 10:20 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
No need to dumb down because we start from a low point
(reflections arising from reading the book, “Revolution” by George Barna, October 05, from Tyndale House Publishers)
Is it a simple matter of fact that most western Christians, be they progressive liberals or “orthodox” conservatives, are very much “conformed to this world” (Romans) and further even “love the world” (I John) – even though they are clearly commanded by Christ’s apostles not to be and do so?
To say this of the progressive liberals may please the orthodox conservatives, for the latter claim that liberals take their agenda and principles from the enlightened world around them and simple give “God” and “Christ” and “biblical” names to these worldly ideals.
Further, to say this of the orthodox conservatives may please the progressive liberals, for the latter claim that the conservatives are conformed to and love a world of their imagination, a world of patriarchy and sexism, which they find in the Bible through their out-of –date exegesis and interpretation.
The “world” for both St Paul and St John could be the cosmos for “God so loved the world that He have his only begotten Son…” But in moral contexts the “world”, for the apostles, is the presence of evil and sin within human society, organizations, culture and ethos. It is a disordered world where instead of existing for the glory of God, people and institutions support and encourage evil. Of course, human beings are made in the image of God and have the potential to do good and to please their Creator, but their souls are infected with sin and they do not naturally fulfill their potential and purpose.
Let us now reflect upon the situation of the “orthodox” conservatives who are seen as “the righteous remnant” in the old, main-line denominations of the USA.
Is it reasonable or just to say of them (and I place myself within their company) that though they protest on behalf of authentic Christianity, they are in so many ways “conformed to this world” and in “love with the world”? My reply is that with regret I do think it is both reasonable and just even though one can find individual cases of saintliness and heroism that seem to point in the other direction.
Here in a kind of theological shorthand are some ways in which some of the churches within the “remnant” are conformed to this world:
- In dress. They treat worship on the Lord’s Day as a kind of special, recreational, leisure activity and this is demonstrated by the way they dress and their general deportment. They do not give the impression that they come to meet the King of kings. Rather, they come casually to meet a “great friend” who says to them “just be yourselves.” Cf. LET God be GOD the LORD!
- In style of worship. There is little evidence of the pursuit of excellence in order to magnify the LORD but in general, the average, the normal, the ordinary in terms of the quality of assembling, singing, and form of language used, are seen as appropriate and good enough. Likewise the content of preaching and teaching does not give the strong impression that they are words about the glorious GOD and the amazing Incarnation of the Son of God. Cf. WORSHIP THE LORD IN THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.
- In reducing the holiness of the Sacrament. The Eucharist is the heavenly meal with the Lord Jesus at his Messianic Banquet and to be there the people must be raised in the Spirit. But how can they when the Eucharist is treated casually and without awe and reverence as it were only holy fast food. Cf. THIS IS MY BODY AND THIS IS MY BLOOD!
- In demands made on converts. While there is emphasis on evangelization and church growth, there is minimal emphasis upon the fullness of the transformed life to which Christ calls his own. This is because the congregation itself is too conformed to the world and its standards and cannot ask the new members to aim too high or else they will cause embarrassment. Cf. BE YE HOLY FOR I AM HOLY SAITH THE LORD.
- In advertising and publicity. So often the techniques of the communication industry are used without asking first the question whether the Christian Gospel truly can fit into the models which this industry supplies without losing its character as “not of this world.” Cf. WE PROCLAIM CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED – foolishness to the Greeks!
- In pastoral care. By adopting uncritically so many of the themes and phraseology of the therapism and the human rights movements and not taking sufficiently seriously the biblical presentation of the human soul and its concupiscence and sinfulness. Thus there is little or no genuine moral and spiritual direction and much counseling and the latter sometimes owes more to the wisdom of this world than the leading of the Holy Spirit. Further clergy are often presented as first of all managers and counselors and then secondly as preachers and teachers and pastors. Cf. THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM AND OF KNOWLEDGE.
- In fixation on relevance and meeting stated needs of people. What people are invited to believe, understand, meditate upon, live out in life, and to be and to do as a Christian in the world is so often reduced to “simple” terms which can be received by all without effort, for the idea is that relevance goes with simplicity. This is what is usually called “dumbing down.” Cf. STRIVE FOR THE HIGHEST.
No doubt some will judge me as being harsh. But I invite all to take a look at the very recently published book, REVOLUTION by George Barna of the Barna Group, a research organization based in California. (Tyndale House Publishers of Illinois)
What is the Revolution? It is that evangelical people up and down the USA are realizing that in most of the evangelical churches and congregations they are not truly and really meeting “the real and true Church of God”. Thus they are looking to other ways of seeking to be genuine Christians, wholly consecrated and committed to the Lord Jesus Christ. Local churches are becoming therefore less relevant and many will have to close as people seek the real Church, the people of God united to the Father through the Son from all over the world. Returning are small group meetings and the like for people of like mind and like aspirations.
Barna claims that what he says is wholly based on sound research and he is so committed to what his team has found that he has joined what he calls the Revolution, a dramatic change going on all over the USA in people in order to seek to become and be genuine Christians who truly serve the Lord in this world.
In Anglican terms: Are the AMiA and the Network and the FinFNA in the USA and the Essentials of Canada partaking of the Revolution, or are they the very groups from which the genuine Revolutionaries for Christ are departing? This is an important question!
October 31, 2005 All Hallows Eve. petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 10:02 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
