The Prayer Book Society: News

Statements from the Lambeth Conferences of 1878 and 1888: The Book of Common Prayer is Central to Worship and Doctrine

2010-10-29T14:31:00.002-05:00

Resolutions from Lambeth 1878
Recommendation 7

Union Among the Churches of the Anglican Communion - Encyclical Letter 1.11-12: Of diversities in worship

Your Committee, believing that, next to oneness in "the faith once delivered to the saints," communion in worship is the link which most firmly binds together bodies of Christian men, and remembering that the Book of Common Prayer, retained as it is, with some modifications, by all our Churches, has been one principal bond of union among them, desire to call attention to the fact that such communion in worship may be endangered by excessive diversities of ritual. They believe that the internal unity of the several Churches will help greatly to the union of these one with another. And, while they consider that such large elasticity in the forms of worship is desirable as will give wide scope to all legitimate expressions of devotional feeling, they would appeal, on the other hand, to the apostolic precept that "all things be done unto edifying," and to the Catholic principle that order and obedience, even at the sacrifice of personal preferences and tastes, lie at the foundation of Christian unity, and are even essential to the successful maintainance of the faith.

They cannot leave this subject without expressing an earnest hope that churchmen of all view, however varying, will recognise the duty of submitting themselves, for conscience' sake, in matters ritual and ceremonial, to the authoritative judgements of that particular or national Church in which, by God's providence, they may be placed; and that they will abstain from all that tends to estrangement or irritation, and will rather daily and fervently pray that the Holy Spirit may guide every member of the Church to "think and do always such things as be rightful," and that he may unite us all in that brotherly charity which is "the very bond of peace and of all virtues."

[NOTE: The Lambeth Conference of 1878 did not adopt any formal Resolutions as such. The mind of the Conference was recorded by incorporating the Reports of its five Committees, received by the plenary Conference with almost complete unanimity, into an Encyclical Letter which was duly published. Recommendations embodied in the Committee Reports were evidently accorded equivalent status to formal Resolutions, and they are reproduced here as they appeared in the course of the Encyclical Letter, under appropriate reference.]

Resolutions from Lambeth 1888
Resolution 19

That, as regards newly constituted Churches, especially in non-Christian lands, it should be a condition of the recognition of them as in complete intercommunion with us, and especially of their receiving from us episcopal succession, that we should first receive from them satisfactory evidence that they hold substantially the same doctrine as our own, and that their clergy subscribe articles in accordance with the express statements of our own standards of doctrine and worship; but that they should not necessarily be bound to accept in their entirety the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

The statement of Lambeth 1878, echoed in 1888, that it is worship which most firmly binds together bodies of Christian men is one of great importance for the communion today. The Book of Common Prayer was seen to be the single most important bond of union. It was not a matter of contract, or covenant, or even agreement about the totality of the Thirty-Nine Articles, it was the practice of prayer.

It is worth pondering the motivation behind such statements.

Do these resolutions not suggest that the doctrine of the Anglican Church is in the Book of Common Prayer itself, in the worship?

It also seems to me that these Resolutions suggest that the very antiquity of the pattern of daily, weekly, and seasonal worship found in the Book of Common Prayer was in itself a reason for obedience and submission.

Finally, it would seem that behind these Resolutions might lie that idea common to the Magisterial Reformers and the Anglican Reformation, Cranmer and Calvin included, that while we are first justified by faith, we also require the sanctifying grace available through the work of prayer and sacrament in order to work blessedness among us.

It particularly seems to me that they are assuming that as humans err, their reason is fallen and their will contrary, knowing the 'faith once delivered from the saints' requires following "the apostolic precept that 'all things be done unto edifying,' and to the Catholic principle that order and obedience, even at the sacrifice of personal preferences and tastes."

--Roberta Bayer, PhD, Editor, The Mandate

As Night Follows Day?

2009-11-16T08:32:00.004-06:00

David Phillips, General Secretary of Church Society writes:

There are many who sincerely believe that it is right for the Church to ordain women as presbyters, and wrong for it to endorse homosexual practice. Although some have argued this distinction forcefully I am convinced that the acceptance of one almost inevitably leads to the acceptance of the other. Some will find this conclusion offensive but I find it rather obvious. -- AS NIGHT FOLLOWS DAY?, from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2009 No. 114

At Almost Every Service I Attend, I Remember God's Mercy

2009-11-04T13:57:00.000-06:00

by Nathan Carr, All Soul's Episcopal Church
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

In most every service I attend, the opening sentence of the Order for Daily Morning Prayer crosses my mind as either the bell tolls or the priest enters, “The Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.” What an interesting thing to say right before we do a lot of talking!

Upon further reading, I noticed from the same chapter in Habakkuk the following: “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” I look around the chapel in anticipation of that Scripture’s fulfillment…but with only two minutes to go, it appears that only one kneeler will be used this morning. I shall really have to speak up now! Right on cue, the priest begins, “The Lord is in his Holy Temple!” Will three voices be enough “water” this morning to fill the earth?

Next to me is my three-year-old son. His two eyes barely peer out over the top of the oaken pew, as he struggles to balance those tiny legs on the kneeler. Whether he’s presently thinking about it or not, I have told him a number of times that today’s service, just like yesterday’s and last night’s, is another celebration of mercy. In fact, Habakkuk comes to mind again! “O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known: in wrath remember mercy.”

Then, as we admit to "provoking most justly [God’s] wrath and indignation against us,” we confess together. I feel very justified in my recollection of Habakkuk, and I find myself already looking forward to Cranmer’s prayer after the consecration, "but Thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy” - mercy that turns the hearts of parents to their children; mercy that allows an ingathering of the saints even to this service with these prayers. I wonder if Habakkuk knew just how far forward his prophetic words would reach?

Confession really is the exhale of the church—for we know also from Habakkuk that “him that establisheth a city by iniquity” stands condemned already. This City, though—the great City of our God—its ramparts are forged in the labor that is love; the labor that is mercy; the labor that is worship. Its ramparts are forged by three-year-olds and awkward fathers.

As I again look down at my Gentile son who now lisps on what would’ve been an unknown continent, I realize how pleasing a thought it would have been for Habakkuk, at the hour of his transcription, to see this time and place of his still-used words. Truly, the knowledge of the glory of the Lord has covered the earth as the waters cover the sea. I bow my teary eyes in silence next to my son, knowing full well the indwelling Lord is in his holy Church.

St Bartholomew Apostle & Martyr, August 24th

2009-08-24T11:27:00.002-05:00

The Feast of Saint Bartholomew the Apostle & Martyr, August 24th

We do not know much about Bartholomew except his name, and that he was an apostle. According to Church tradition (recorded by Eusebius), it is said that he preached the gospel of Christ in India (a vague geographical term that in antiquity covered much of south Asia) and died a martyr in Armenia, after being skinned alive. That is why his traditional symbol is the flenching knife; and he is sometimes portrayed in art – most famously in the Sistine chapel – with his own flayed skin hanging over his arm. In the Middle Ages, with an indelicate sense of humour, he was made the patron of butchers, and all artisans who worked in leather – tanners, curriers, shoemakers, glovemakers, and bookbinders. But if church tradition is loquacious, Scripture is reticent about his personal qualities and life story, and we must take that reticence seriously. By denying our natural curiosity about them Scripture forces us to focus on what is of primary important to us – his calling to be an apostle of Jesus Christ.

In today’s lesson from Saint Luke’s gospel, chosen many centuries ago for this feast day, we find the apostles at the last supper, bickering about “which of them should be accounted the greatest”, when God, as they confidently expected, would bestow the authority and power of his Kingdom upon their Master, Jesus of Nazareth. As we know from other occasions, recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, they conceived of his Kingdom in worldly terms, and their ambitions were whetted by the thought of being his right-hand man, with first crack at the spoils of power and prestige. It is not an edifying display – but who are we too complain? Jockeying for position and prestige is a feature of every human society and institution, from the playground to the pulpit, in the cut-throat worlds of business and politics, and even in marriage and friendship.

Yet greatness in the kingdom is not an unworthy desire. It is simply a matter of getting the right perspective on it. Jesus began by correcting the apostles’ fantasies of power and prestige. “The kings of the Gentiles”, he told them, “exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called Benefactors.” It is a subtle reminder that they are talking just like the pagan rulers and officials they despise, who used the privileges and vast wealth of their positions to keep armies of dependents in ego-gratifying servility. “But ye shall not be so”, he tells them, and then turns upside down their worldly notions of greatness: “but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at meat? But I am among you as he that serveth”. The proper question, he is saying, is not ‘which is the greatest in the Kingdom’ but rather ‘how those who are great in the Kingdom conduct themselves’. In his Kingdom, greatness is manifested in humble service.

The word “service” gets bandied about a great deal in our society. Schools require young people to undertake “service projects” in the community, designed to harness their idealism towards the improvement of the world. Experts on business management talk about “servant-leadership” as a way of improving the productivity and effectiveness of one’s employees. This is not really what Jesus is talking about. In Biblical terms a servant is a slave, and a slave has no power to assert his own will; he is entirely at the disposal of the one he serves. To be great in the Kingdom of God, therefore, is to have given up one’s rights, and one’s own will, in favour of God’s will. It is to put oneself entirely at the service of God, as Jesus did, even though it meant death, the death of the cross. Following in the footsteps of the servant of the Lord, the apostles must deny themselves, and crucify worldly pride.

That is a hard saying, no question about it: but Jesus only takes away worldly ambition, that he may give them true greatness in the Kingdom of God: “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations” he tells the apostles; “and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”. It is by obedience that men learn how to command; and those who put themselves at the service of God become the willing instruments of his almighty will, and are entrusted with power and authority from on high. When the Lord’s Servant, who humbled himself unto death, even the death of the cross, was highly exalted in his resurrection, and given all authority in heaven and earth; those who followed him in humble service of God were commissioned to claim the allegiance of all nations to him.

For an apostle is “someone who is sent” -- an emissary or ambassador of the Kingdom of God, sent to announce the Kingdom’s coming in Jesus Christ, and authorized to claim men’s allegiance to him. “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5.20). They are entrusted with the Word of God’s power, of his justice and mercy; the power to proclaim repentance and remission of sins among all nations in Jesus’ name; the power to bring the light of heaven into the dark places of the earth, and to admit men to communion with God. “We preach not ourselves, (says St. Paul) but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4.5). The words are St. Paul’s, but he speaks for all the apostles, and for those of us who profess the apostolic faith.

In his poem “The Windows”, George Herbert, a 17th century priest and poet, asked,

Lord, how can man preach thy eternal word?
He is a brittle crazy glass:
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.

Such is greatness in the Kingdom of God: “To be a window, through thy grace” to the light of God’s truth, his goodness, his beauty, his justice, and his mercy, as this is revealed in his eternal Word, and set forth in the witness of the apostles to Jesus Christ. It is the greatness of Bartholomew and all the apostles; which it is our holy desire to share; and so we pray, that as his fellow-servants, we may both love what he believed, and proclaim what he taught. Amen.

Bishop Jeremy Taylor

2009-08-13T11:53:00.003-05:00

The Anglican calendar commemorates Bishop Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667), a scholar, a man of prayer, and a true pastor. He lived through a century that saw the execution of King Charles I, the Cromwellian interregnum which suppressed the Church of England and banned the Book of Common Prayer, and finally the Restoration. He was a renowned scholar, a student of the liturgy, his thinking formed by the works of the Church Fathers, who defended the Book of Common Prayer, and the historic practice of organized formal prayer in his essay An Apology for Authorized and Set-Forms of Liturgy.

Taylor is best known for The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and Holy Dying, his contemplation of the purposes of life in the face of our final end, and advice on the means to living well, and preparing ourselves for a blessed death. Filled with hope and love, not dark or distressing, Taylor's work offers practical advice. In his memory I excerpt the following:

The memories of the saints are precious to God, and therefore they ought also to be so to us; and such persons who serve God by holy living, industrious preaching, and religious dying, ought to have their names preserved in honour, and God be glorified in them, and their holy doctrines and lives published and imitated; and we by so doing give testimony to the article of the communion of saints...

And so today we give thanks to God for the work of Bishop Taylor.

Roberta Bayer
[More information about Bp Taylor and links to his writings can be found at www.anglicanhistory.org/taylor]

Reality

2009-08-12T10:57:00.002-05:00

When we say that we desire to recover real religion, what we mean is that we desire to recover Christ Jesus. True religion is recovered when man discovers that Jesus Christ is reality. Reality- or what is true and good, is God's life, and God's life is given to man in Christ Jesus.Reality is the union of God with man, and man with God. Christ Jesus is the dynamic center of this unifying reality. He is the love of God and the love of man in the one centrifugal activity which unites the two. Through the Holy Spirit this love is offered to us. If we accept it "he will dwell in us, and we in him". Are you interested in this Reality? Or are you, rather, following a religion that is alien to it?

--Fr. William Martin

PBS on Scriptorium

2009-07-07T08:46:00.003-05:00

Fred Sanders has a piece posted on the Scriptorium blog called "Cranmer Prays to the Trinity" in which he references one of Peter Toon's articles from 2001 here: "Praying to the Holy Trinity, One Lord, with Thomas Cranmer". He also commends the current issue of the PBS's journal The Mandate.

Scriptorium is sponsored by the Torrey Honors Institute of Biola University.

The PBS website and blog contain a large number of posts and articles, many by the late Rev'd Dr Peter Toon. The easiest way to find those in which you may be interested is to use the search box on the home page: this will search both the PBS website and the blog site.

2009-06-13T20:04:00.002-05:00

From The Rev'd David Curry

2009-06-02T11:07:00.001-05:00

Dr. Peter Toon

The death of Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon (on April 25th, 2009) has saddened us all. But there is much comfort to be taken from the witness of his life.

Peter was one of the most remarkable oracles of the Anglican Way. He shall be greatly missed. Indefatigable in his commitment to Christian Orthodoxy and to the place of the Anglican witness within that orthodoxy, Peter was tireless in a much neglected but crucial feature of our corporate life. He was, first and foremost, a catechist. That is no mean feat and no minor calling. Quite the opposite. It was Peter’s advocation. He was zealous and insistent upon using every opportunity to teach and proclaim the essential love of God for our humanity declared and made known in Jesus Christ.

It was the form of his service to the Church Universal in and through the Anglican Way. It was my privilege to have known Peter, to have enjoyed his confidence and respect and to have learned from him as a colleague and friend. Dogged and determined in his approach to matters of doctrine, there was also a remarkable humility to Peter. He was almost unique as an English academic in wanting to try to understand the North American Anglican (Episcopal) scene and to appreciate what is true in it. He was also a true intellectual willing to learn from others, however green behind the ears they may have seemed. Writing as a Canadian priest, I can only remember with great gratitude Peter’s openness, consideration, support and regard for the Prayer Book Society of Canada whose witness he valued and to which witness he greatly contributed.

In our present confusions, we may be apt to wring our hands, to lament and complain, to fret and worry about a multitude of things. We would do well to remember the perseverance in prayer, thought and action of Dr. Peter Toon, the legacy of whose service to the Gospel of Christ in and through the Anglican Way remains ours to keep.

We give thanks to God for Peter’s prolific teaching ministry. Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon him. Well done, thou good and faithful servant!

(Rev’d) David Curry
Vice-Chairman of the PBSC
June 1st, 2009

When Church Leaders go Wrong

2009-05-21T10:02:00.001-05:00

As a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, I was not happy when the president of the University of Notre Dame invited President Obama to speak at Notre Dame's commencement ceremony this year. Checking the Roman Catholic website www.faithfulcitizenship.org, one finds a document dated June 15, 2004 which contains a statement from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on the subject of Catholics in Political Life. It states clearly why he should not have been invited:

* We need to continue to teach clearly and help other Catholic leaders to teach clearly on our unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries.

* The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

Fr Jenkins, the university president, should have recognized that he was contravening an instruction from the Conference of Catholic Bishops in offering President Obama a doctorate of laws. A commencement ceremony is not a place to engage in political dispute, yet that is exactly what happened when President Obama took the stand. Instead of avoiding the issue, and speaking on topics which might concern a graduating class, he gave a speech which indeed was a pro-choice speech. Consequently Notre Dame gave him a platform to profess something that is contrary to Biblical authority and the long-held teaching of the church.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee (Jeremiah.1.5)

It is by God's providence that we come into the world, and it is He also who knows the end of our days. He is the beginning and end, the alpha and omega of everything that exists, including ourselves. Every conception is ordered to His will, every humanly contrived termination is an act of ours. Surely it must be clear that human life is not ours to willfully take away.

One lesson that Anglicans should take away from watching this debacle is that even within the Roman Catholic Church there is precious little power to regulate rogue priests, university presidents and boards of trustees of Catholic universities. Even the local bishop of South Bend, Indiana could only voice opposition. The president of the University of Notre Dame, despite being a priest in the Order of the Holy Cross, could not be stopped from awarding an honorary degree to President Obama. Even the most hierarchical church has limited authority over subordinate institutions and priests. Those in the Prayer Book Society who work without any institutional backing should take heart. It is argument, not power, that must be marshaled to win any theological fight.

Roberta Bayer

From Graham Eglington, former National Director of the Prayer Book Society of Canada

2009-05-01T15:20:00.002-05:00

Tribute to Dr. Peter Toon

Peter was my comrade in arms, guide, counsellor, and dear friend for upwards of 20 years. I owe him much personally. But it is his contribution to the Anglican Way of reformed Catholicism, particularly in North America and Australia which concerns us all. The Prayer Book as the principal formulary and root of the Anglican Way was at the heart of his message. Indeed it would not be saying too much to observe that there would be no Prayer Book cause in North America without his tenacious, dedicated, learned contribution. Peter shone like a searchlight through the fog of ignorance, amnesia, wishful and selective thinking , the muddled motives and petty jealousies that surround the supposedly orthodox Anglican forces in North America, Australia and even in England. His incisive mind and clarity of expression served us all so well, even those of us who were made uncomfortable thereby.

Peter was determined to understand and to engage modern North American life and society. His analyses remain a tremendous gift to us who are left to fight on for the Anglican Way. Not for Peter was the Anglican Way a retreat into some romanticised, enchanted world of faux mediaevelism. Peter’s faith was a living, driving thing, and in him one got a real sense that our God is a flaming fire. His profound humility never lessened the urgency with which he worked, and wrote. A master of terse, nervous English he could address complex issues in simple direct terms in a very brief span. We shall not see his like again. He was God’s gift, and his writings are a treasure trove to be rediscovered and put to use by succeeding generations.

Generosity of spirit attended Peter in all his work and life. Never did he resort to ad hominem attacks on opponents in argument. His tenderness to some of his antagonists was extraordinary, though his life was marked by adversities and betrayals, by humiliations at the hands of those he thought were allies, and by slights, sneers and condescension on the part of those who were in every respect his inferiors, that would have provoked a lesser man to sarcasm and worse. Never was he bitter. Peter remains to us all an ensample of emulation of our Lord’s life and teaching. Peter lived the petitions in so many of the Collects he delighted to expound to our benefit in his weekly commentaries on the Eucharistic lectionary.

We are all so much the poorer for Peter’s personal absence from us and from the end of his earthly ministry. But of him we can say with confidence: “May he rest in peace; and rise in glory”. In his memory we must all “press on”.

Graham Eglington, former National Director of the Prayer Book Society of Canada

From Ian Robinson

2009-04-30T09:37:00.000-05:00

Peter Toon was one of the best minds of the Anglican tradition in modern times. Gifted with a very good and well-stocked memory, he was a relentlessly efficient thinker, able to produce everything from scholarly works to comments on issues of the day at a great pace without loss of coherence or depth. He was as near as we have come to a reliable, faithful and reasonable guide to the Christian way in times when it is often obscured.

During his long and debilitating final illness the frequent emails in which he made sometimes daily comments continued almost as before. Characteristically his experience of approaching towards death turned him to the problem of suffering, and how it relates to faith, and his thinking was as clear and profound as ever.

Without pre-empting judgement one may surely hope for Peter to hear “Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.”

It is harder for those of us still in the field that this shepherd is taken from us in his intellectual prime, though Peter would have been the first to remind us of “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.”

Ian Robinson
The Brynmill Press and Edgeways Books

From The Rev. Ed Hird

2009-04-29T10:11:00.001-05:00

Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Dr Peter Toon came many times to Canada. As he was living in Seattle and attending St Lukes' Seattle with the Rev. Dr John Roddam, Dr Toon was able to visit a number of times to Vancouver BC. I remember once when Dr Toon was about to speak at St John's Shaughnessy to the faithful embattled Anglicans in BC. Dr. JI Packer introduced him, saying how much he was looking forward to hearing Dr. Toon, and ended by saying in childlike joy and with a twinkle in his eye: 'goody'. ;)

I also remember meeting Dr. Toon a number of times at the AMiA Conferences, which shows his true catholicity in embracing faithful Anglicans from different streams. While Dr. Toon 'enjoyed' a good debate, there was an overall graciousness and breadth to Dr. Toon that I fondly remember. His work on the recent 'Anglican Prayer Book', sponsored by AMiA and used now by many, is a good example of that graciousness and scholarship.

Ed Hird+

From Bill Fishburne

2009-04-28T10:44:00.000-05:00

Dr. Toon's work enriched our spiritual lives through the many notes he authored that appeared in these pages. He will be greatly missed.

Bill Fishburne

Into thy hands, O merciful Saviour, we commend the soul of thy servant, Peter, now departed from the body. Acknowledge, we humbly beseech thee, a sheep of thine own fold, a lamb of thine own flock, a sinner of thine own redeeming. Receive him into the arms of thy mercy, into the blessed rest of everlasting peace, and into the glorious company of the Saints in light. Who livest and reignest, world without end. Amen,

Rest eternal grant unto him O Lord,
And let light perpetual shine upon him
May he rest in peace. Amen

From The Rev'd. Dr. John Roddam

2009-04-28T10:43:00.000-05:00

Our parish was privileged to stand in prayer with you in this season. Peter spoke encouragement to our parish family that blessed us and endeared us to him. Peter's heart for Reformed Catholicism and passion for the Word of God were profound. He has left a legacy with the Prayer Book Society and beyond that offers hope in a morass of confusion within the Anglican Family.

Peter was a wonderful mentor to many church leaders. He greatly blessed me with practical pastoral wisdom. He also demonstrated gracious conversation with those with whom he differed. My life has been enriched by the Toons!

Know that Holly and I, with our St. Luke's parish family, pray for God's comfort and strength for you and your family at this time. God Bless!

-John+

Iesus, tanto nomini nullum par elogium!
Jesus, for so great a name, no praise is adequate!

The Rev'd. Dr. John Roddam,
St. Luke's Episcopal Church,
Seattle, WA

From The Reverend Dr. David Wheaton

2009-04-27T18:27:00.001-05:00

Peter joined the staff of Oak Hill College in Southgate, North London in 1976 from Latimer House in Oxford, where he had been working alongside Dr. James Packer at the Anglican Evangelical research centre. At that time the College was negotiating with the Council for National Academic Awards with a view to being able to set up its own courses with a greater Biblical and pastoral emphasis than was to be found in the syllabi current in the General Ordination Examination or the Diploma and Degree courses offered externally by London University.

Peter's academic prowess gave greater credibility to the College in the eyes of the CNAA. The College's official history (Witness to the Word published by Paternoster Press in 2002) records that he instilled in students his own deep appreciation of the Anglican heritage, and was never satisfied with facile, poorly thought-out answers. He was always ready to challenge his colleagues as well as his students to think more deeply. The College community also valued having Vita and Deborah living on site as part of the College community.

Yours in Christ,

The Reverend Dr. David Wheaton,
former Principle Oak Hill Theological College, London, UK,
Honorary Chaplain to Her Majesty the Queen,
Canon Emeritus of the Cathedral and Abbey Church of St Alban

From Dr Richard Pierard

2009-04-27T08:22:00.001-05:00

It is with great sadness that I read the message of Peter Toon's passing.

I had first met Peter in England in the early 1970s when he allowed me to speak in his church, and we had visited in each other's homes on subsequent occasions. To be sure, we travelled along different paths ecclesiologically, in that he was an Anglican and I am American Baptist, and we worked in different periods of church history. But I always appreciated Peter's good spirit and commitment to the historic Christian faith which we shared. It is hard to believe that he is no longer with us, but his memory lives on. I convey my sympathies to his wife and family members, and remain encouraged by that hope that we shall see one another against in that glorious resurrection day.

Cordially,

Richard Pierard

Dr. Richard and Charlene Pierard, Professor of History Emeritus, Indiana State University and Gordon College

From The Rev'd Canon Dr Gavin Ashenden

2009-04-27T08:10:00.001-05:00

Peter meant a very good deal to me - and to many of those he taught.

We immediately recognised him as an individual thinker of considerable authenticity and standing.

He was both a source of inspiration and also of liberation to us as we tried to offer our minds as well as our hearts to our dear Lord.

Peter opened so many windows for us. He inculcated an attitude that was at one and the same time wholly reverential, and also unafraid to look for that angle of integrity. He encouraged us to think, and explore, to dismantle and rebuild, but unlike so many intellectuals, this was nothing to do with the ego, and everything to do with service for the kingdom and the Gospel.

We recognised how much he knew - and how far he had travelled. We became unafraid to flex our intellectual muscles since Peter set us an example of how that could be done in a way that was thoroughly Godly, faithful and constructive.

In the last few years, Peter's was the voice I looked to for a proper and dependable interpretation of what was happening in the American Church.

My loss will be nothing compared to yours, but I feel it keenly nonetheless.

A world that lacks Peter, lacks an element of intelligent compassionate insight it can ill afford to lose.

A Church that lacks Peter, is so much the poorer for he takes his integrity with him, and there is too little left behind.

He was generous in the way he honoured us with his friendship, and I am profoundly grateful and blessed for having known him, and been trained to serve our Lord's Church by him.

"All shall be amen and alleuluia.
There we shall rest and we shall see;
we shall see and we shall love;
we shall love and we shall praise.
Behold what shall be in the End and shall not end."

St Augustine of Hippo.

The Rev'd Canon Dr Gavin Ashenden,

Chaplain and Lecturer in Humanities,
The University of Sussex.

Chaplain to Her Majesty the Queen

The Death of Dr. Peter Toon Saturday April 25, 2009

2009-04-26T20:35:00.003-05:00

Dr. Peter Toon, priest and theologian, passed away on the evening of the feast of St Mark the Evangelist, in San Diego, California, where he and his wife have resided for the last months. He will be sorely missed by all those who love the Anglican Way. Dr. Toon has been, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the most vocal and prolific defender of the theology of the Anglican Reformation and the traditional Book of Common Prayer over the last decades. The absence of his voice on so many issues facing the church today will be an irreparable loss. Clarity of mind, depth of knowledge, and vigor of presentation marked his work, making his arguments both distinctive and convincing. An evangelist like St Mark, he was a lion of the faith.

During the last year, Dr. Toon has been suffering from a rare disease called amyloidosis. Diagnosed last spring, he underwent various treatments that were intended to slow the progress of the disease. Sadly, the disease was stronger than the medications, and we have lost him sooner than was hoped.

At the end Dr. Toon was attended by Fr Tony Noble, rector of All Saints' Episcopal Church, San Diego. Over the last weeks they have prayed together with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and his final words to Fr Noble were to the praise of God who he has served and loved so well. In his last hours, Fr Noble prayed with Dr. Toon the commendatory prayer.

O Almighty God, with whom do live the spirits of just men made perfect, after they are delivered from their earthly prisons: We humbly commend the soul of this thy servant,our dear brother, into thy hands, as into the hands of a faithful Creator, and most merciful Saviour; most humbly beseeching thee that it may be precious in they sight. Wash it, we pray thee, in the blood of that immaculate Lamb, that was slain to take away the sins of the world; that whatsoever defilements it may have contracted in the midst of this miserable and naughty world, through the lusts of the flesh or the wiles of Satan, being purged and done away, it may be presented pure and without spot before thee. And teach us who survive, in this and other like daily spectacles of mortality, to see how frail and uncertain our own condition is; and so to number our days, that we may seriously apply our hearts to that holy and heavenly wisdom, whilst we live here, which may in the end bring us to life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, thine only Son our Lord. Amen.

May light perpetual shine up on Dr. Toon. May the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace.

Dr. Roberta Bayer
The Prayer Book Society of the United States of America

The Prayer Book Society will hold a memorial service at All Saints' Episcopal Church, San Diego, California, at a future date.

Obituary of Dr Peter Toon

Reflections on Holy Saturday near to its doctrinal themes.

2009-04-12T06:39:00.001-05:00

In the west of the U.S.A. there seems to be a running together of the Christian Burial Office and a general funeral. This has been encouraged by the caring, therapeutic, hospital, and funeral directors, in the context of a secularized culture. Practically, it means that death is the culmination of a period of being kept without pain and in as much comfort as possible with the promise to some of remission.

Historically and biblically the Burial Office is primarily about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and secondarily about the person who has died because God is the God of the living and the dead. The proclamation is of the Christian hope of the resurrection of the dead and of life everlasting in the perfect Kingdom of God. And the deceased is commended within that living hope. Often a memorial service relating to the buried deceased is held days or weeks after the funeral burial service.

What are the chief features of the Christian Burial Office in the classic Anglican Prayer Books up to the modern era?

1. At the service there is always the body of the deceased unless he has been lost at sea. There can be no burial office without a body. (Today at funeral services such is very uncommon. The presence of a body or cremated remains are very rare, and are usually found in the funeral director’s establishment.)

2. The Burial Office may be held in church followed by interment in a burial ground, or it may take place wholly in a burial ground; or it may begin in the home and end in the burial ground. (The modern funeral is usually only in the church and is a mixed liturgy of burial and memorial.)

3. The natural expression of the mourners is that of the Psalms which were the prayers of Jesus, and these can be said or sung before and after the burial office. (In contrast in modern funerals any preferred music may be used.)

4. Central to the Christian Burial Office is the reading of the hope from the New Testament and no sermon is required for the Scripture is intended to be clear in and of itself. (Sometimes sermons are preached at the Burial Office and seem always to be preached at the modern funeral service.)

5. Also integral to the Christian Burial Office is the Collect which, though longish, sets out the Christian hope with power and clarity.( In contrast, modern Christian funeral substitutes Collects of choice.)

6. Absolutely integral to the Christian Burial Office is the final Commendation where the recognition of the separation of soul and body is acknowledged and both are commended to the care of God until they are reunited as one in the great Resurrection of the Last Day: when all diseases and sicknesses and maladies shall be eliminated everlastingly. (In contrast, for many modern funerals the celebration of the person in this life and this only is in view.)

7. In the Burial Office the service at the graveside must end with the anthem: I heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me, Write, From henceforth blessed are the dead which die in the Lord: even so saith the Spirit; for they rest from their labours.

What a vast difference! And regrettably even as churches have changed their doctrine of Baptism to make it a commitment only to peace and justice in this world, they have changed their final service for Christians by making it into a celebration of life in this world!

Saturday April 11, 2009
The Rev. Dr. Peter Toon

Lent and Justification by Faith or, better, Justification by Faith and Lent

2009-02-19T15:17:00.001-06:00

Justification by faith alone by God’s grace is clearly taught in detail by the apostle Paul in The Letters to Galatia and Rome, and it appears also in other Letters, as well as in embryo in the Book of Genesis and in the Psalter.

In substance this doctrine advances the view that a sinner is placed in a right relation with God, his Judge, through the merits of Jesus Christ, when he repents of sin and believes and trusts in the same Jesus as his Lord and Savior. The perfect righteousness that belongs to the exalted Christ Jesus is reckoned or accounted to the believing sinner so that the latter is declared righteous by the Father, through and in Christ the Righteous One.

The doctrine that it is primarily intended to exclude is the doctrine of justification or salvation by works, that is the notion that the good person can by doing good works gain entry into eternal life on the basis of merit from those works.

READ MORE

ADVENT in terms of A D V E N T

2008-12-06T21:53:00.001-06:00

A: Recalling the Arrival of (1) the only-begotten Son of the Father as Immanuel, God made Man, born of the Virgin Mary, as the Infant of Bethlehem; and (2) the same Son of God, now as the Christ, Lord, and Savior, with the hosts of heaven, to raise the dead, judge the nations and open heaven for the righteous and hell for the wicked.
D: Remembering the Day of the LORD as being (1) the Day foretold by prophets, sages and psalmists of the birth of the Messiah, the Light for the Gentiles and the Glory for Israel; and (2) the Day of the Judgment of the Nations and Peoples, the Day when the LORD reveals his attributes of holiness and righteousness.
V: The time especially for Venite; that is, the time when we are called to come before the Lord to praise Him for his COMING to us in mercy and grace: Venite adoremus. And Psalm 95, “O Come, let us sing unto the Lord…”
E: The initial period in the Church Year and specifically one of Expectation, that is of (1) liturgical expectation throughout the four Sundays as the people of God in “liturgical time” deepen their desire for the arrival of the Messiah and Lord; and (2) living hope (expectation) for the Second Coming in glory with the holy angels of the same Messiah.
N: The narration from Scripture, through liturgical word and ceremony, and through psalms, hymns and songs, of the creating and redeeming acts of God the Father, through his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, of his two Comings.
T: The first season of the Church Year, and the season in which the people of God are introduced to Theotokos, the Birth-Giver of [the Son of] God, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Peter Toon Eve of Advent Sunday 2008

The Revd Dr Peter Toon
petertoon@msn.com
drpetertoon@yahoo.com

GAFCON & the Bishops & Diocese of Sydney!

2008-11-03T13:56:00.001-06:00

from Peter Toon

In great sadness and pain for the Anglican Family, I write this tractate. You may care to read the news-item at the end first:

If GAFCON truly is walking in the biblical, historic Anglican Way;

If GAFCON truly is committed to Anglican, Reformed Catholicism and not to a generic, popular Evangelicalism in Anglican style;

If GAFCON truly is committed to the full and final authority of the Holy Scriptures, and resting on them is also bound to the content and teaching of the classic FORMULARIES of the Anglican Way—The BCP, Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion;

If GAFCON is still really committed to the powerful dedication made in a very public way at Jerusalem in June 2008;

And if GAFCON is still critical of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisors for their failure to be obedient to the Gospel and its teaching of Morals;

THEN, what the Diocese of Sydney has recently re-affirmed and confirmed as its public doctrine stands in total opposition to the doctrinal and public stance of GAFCON . This innovation in doctrine by Sydney is to teach and allow persons, who are not ordained as presbyters (priests), to celebrate the Eucharist and preside at the Order of Holy Communion.

My earnest suggestion to the leadership of GAFCON is this:

After appropriate warning, the Council of Primates of GAFCON should expel the Bishops and Diocese of Sydney immediately: by this action GAFCON will maintain its committed to the biblical, classic Anglican Way and will show that it does take discipline (a mark of the true church) seriously.

If GAFCON does nothing and allows the Diocese of Sydney, with its innovatory doctrine, and pride in that innovation, to remain as a full member, then GAFCON will become, and will be seen by thousands, as merely and only an international, Evangelical Anglican Group— with no serious claims to a serious catholic ecclesiology and historic Ministry, and no real opportunity or intention to set a godly example to the whole Anglican Communion of Churches.

[See below for news of the Sydney decision, which has been on the books for several years. I have been to Sydney some five or so times and on one visit I debated at St Paul’s College, University of Sydney, this question of the identity of Celebrant at the Eucharist. My talk was printed somewhere but I cannot find it! Peter Toon, October 30, 2008.]

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/10/28/sydney-diocese-approves-lay-presidency-at-the-eucharist

Sydney Diocese Approves Lay Presidency at the Eucharist

Posted on: October 28, 2008

The annual synod of the Diocese of Sydney has overwhelmingly approved a resolution restating its support for diaconal and lay presidency at Holy Communion.

No further action is required for deacons to begin celebrating the Eucharist, according to the Rt. Rev. Glenn Davies, Bishop of North Sydney and sponsor of the resolution. Writing an opinion piece for the diocesan newspaper, Bishop Davis added that even though the resolution also makes it permissible for lay persons to administer communion, they would need to be licensed by Archbishop Peter Jensen to do so in a service of public worship. Archbishop Jensen has previously said he is unwilling to do so.

During debate of the resolution on Oct. 20, a number of amendments designed to weaken its impact were proposed. Each was defeated, according to information published on the diocesan website. The Diocese of Sydney is a member of the Anglican Church of Australia.

The most serious challenge to passage of the resolution came from a priest who had attended the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) last summer and said approval could affect the diocese’s relationship with GAFCON bishops. The approved resolution includes a provision to send each GAFCON bishop a copy of a book published by the Anglican Church League explaining the theological rationale for lay presidency.

END

All Saints’ Day is November 1: But who and what are the “Saints?”

2008-11-03T13:52:00.000-06:00

a reflection from Dr Peter Toon

It appears from the tremendous commercial investment in making the evening of October 31 a “fun evening” and an end in itself, that most of modern America does not know or care that there is only “All Hallows’ Eve” because there is “All Saints’ Day” the next day.

But let us focus here upon “all saints.” There appears to be within the Christian traditions two ways of understanding what is a “saint.”

First, there is the way which Paul the Apostle embraces in his Letters: here, a saint is a baptized, disciple of Jesus Christ, who is being sanctified (made holy) by the presence, work, gifts, fruit and virtues of the Holy Spirit, working in him and in the church. Here all active and consecrated disciples of Jesus, who are members of the church, are “saints.” (See e.g., Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2) Obviously backsliding, apostate and nominal church members do not qualify for this description for they do not seek holiness.

The other way of understanding what is a “saint” is provided by Christian Tradition and is reflected in the naming of churches (e.g., St Augustine’s Church), in special days of commemoration (e.g., St Luke’s Day) and in patron saints of countries and cities (e.g., St George of England). Here the biblical description is both narrowed and intensified: the real “saint” is now a rare person who stands out from the rest of church members, and does so by his or her holiness, goodness and love for God and man.

Having distinguished the two types of saints, we now have to determine which of the two is commemorated by the Reformed Catholic Church of England in her Book of Common Prayer (editions from 1549 through to 1662).

In making this determination, we have to bear in mind the fact that The Book of Common Prayer does itself provide in the Church Year commemorative days not only for the Lord Jesus himself (e.g. Christmas), but also for the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles and Evangelists. Further, there is a tradition which calls the latter by the name “Saint,” and so, for example, we speak of “St Mark’s Day.”

On the other hand, the same Prayer Book rejects the primary act of devotion on a “Saint’s Day” in late medieval times – that of asking the saint in question to pray for Christians on earth. By taking away the spiritual power of the “saint” to intercede uniquely for the faithful on earth, the Reformers may be seen as making the “saint” into a godly, fine example of that which all genuine Christians ought to aspire to be as Christians, truly the holy ones, as in the usage of Paul, the Apostle.

So we come to the Epistle, Gospel and Collect for All Saints Day in the Prayer Book. The Epistle is Revelation 7:2-12 and points to the final salvation and place in heaven of all genuine believers – that is, of Paul’s saints. The Gospel is St Matthew 5:1-12 and is the Beatitudes, again a description of the life to which all baptized, committed Christians are called—that is, Paul’s saints. The Collect was composed in 1548/9 by the Reformers and is as follows in the 1662 edition of the Prayer Book:

O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

If we carefully analyze this Collect, we see that the first part speaks definitely of all truly baptized Christians, the elect of God the Father, the (Pauline) saints of God, and it is they who together, by the union of the Holy Spirit, are the body of Christ. However, in contrast, the reference in the second part to following “thy blessed Saints” appears to lean towards the traditional meaning: that is, to narrow the meaning of the Pauline “saint” to those who have excelled by grace and dedication in practical holiness, and present them as worthy persons to be followed and imitated .
So, to summarize, it would appear that the Reformed Catholicism of The Book of Common Prayer is primarily committed to the biblical, Pauline, meaning of saint and calls all Christians to be what they are by God’s will in and through Christ, and called to be ,by God the Father– holy ones, sanctified ones, saints. But it is also ready to use the common, traditional meaning in a restricted and reformed way as well.

Therefore the “all saints” of the feast day are the countless, unrecorded, baptized Christians through the centuries and from all peoples, who were truly sanctified, holy, persons, fulfilling their vocations in serving Christ their Lord in the church and world, in a consecrated, dedicated and faithful way. It is probably safe to say that they are a minority of the whole baptized membership of the One Church of God.

In closing, we may note that the distinction between the Saint of tradition and the saint of the Pauline Letters is very strong indeed in both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and is a major theme of “Catholic religion”; in contrast, the distinction does not exist in pure Protestantism as part of its principles.

Now SING: “For all the saints who from their labors rest”

Appendix: A modern view of Sainthood from The P B of TEC

In her message to the Episcopal Church marking All Saints' Day, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori suggests that Episcopalians look for the modern saints who minister all around them every day.

'In your neighborhood, who is the saint who picks up trash?' she asks. 'Who looks out for school children on their way to and from school? Who looks after an elderly or frail neighbor, running errands or checking to be sure that person has what is needed? In your community, what saints labor on behalf of the voiceless?'

Saints, Jefferts Schori reminded the church, 'come in all shapes, ages, colors, and theological stripes.'

Full story: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_102001_ENG_HTM.htm

Dr Peter Toon, October 28 2008, drpetertoon@yahoo.com

A unique kind of Prayer: An Anglican Collect designed to supply the Defects of our other Prayers

2008-11-03T13:51:00.000-06:00

Reflections from Peter Toon

When you come to the end of participation in public worship, do you feel a sense of satisfaction? Or do you have the sense that what has been said and done though good could have been much more suited to the glory of God Almighty?

Bearing these questions in mind, let us delve into an ancient prayer, which originally appeared in the first fully English Liturgy.

In The Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1552. 1604 & 1662) there is a collect, printed at the end of the Service of Holy Communion, and composed by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, that was not intended for any particular part of the Church Year or for any special occasion. Rather, it was made available for possible use to clergy and heads of households after the normal content of worship and prayer had been offered to God. Here it is in the very traditional English language of public worship:

“Almighty God, the fountain of all wisdom, who knowest our necessities before we ask, and our ignorance in asking; We beseech thee to have compassion on our infirmities; and those things, which for our unworthiness we dare not ask, and for our blindness we cannot ask, vouchsafe to give us, for the worthiness of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

I do not know about you, but for me this prayer seems to fit my situation more often than I care to admit!

The point is that whether we use a superior or inferior type of liturgy, whether we perform acts of devotion in a crude or creative way, and even whether we prepare ourselves for worship as carefully and fully as possible, we are still going to offer—before the absolute perfection of God—defective and imperfect worship and prayer to the Father. The fact of the matter is that, while we are called to be saints but are not yet saints, there is much in us and about us that is constantly in need of the cleansing and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

Let us now analyze the collect, beginning with the opening address to the Almighty God, the Father of the Lord Jesus.

First of all, we recall in his presence, as we begin to pray, that all true wisdom, the kind that King Solomon asked for, comes solely from God. He is the living Source and Fountain of all wisdom, and as the infinite, eternal, God of wisdom he knows both our “necessities” before we make our requests and “our ignorance” in making them. Being creatures made in the image of God as persons with body and soul, we have daily needs—“necessities”— arising both from our physical and spiritual/moral aspects and natures. Thus we require not only food and clothing, but also forgiveness and moral discipline. As Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:8 & 32) God the Father knows all the needs of his children. And he also knows the lack of true knowledge that Christians, including saintly persons, actually have of themselves and their real needs of body and soul. All of us are ignorant of the full picture and diagnosis of our condition, and thus even our best efforts in prayer fall far short of what they should truly be in terms of rightly petitioning our Father in heaven.

We are now prepared, and the stage is now set, to examine the actual petitions of this collect.

“We beseech thee to have compassion upon our infirmities.” In a modern culture of “rights,” we do not address God as if we had any rights to stand on; rather we beg and we beseech, as those who have no merits to claim. Our heart’s desire is that God our Father be graciously pleased to show compassion to us who are continually plagued by our own infirmities (physical and spiritual weaknesses). Let him in his mercy, we earnestly hope, bring healing and strength to us in body and soul.

“And those things which, for our unworthiness, we dare not, and for our blindness we cannot ask, vouchsafe to give us for the worthiness of thy Son…”

God, the all-wise and all-knowing LORD, is aware of all our infirmities! We are aware of some, but we are sometimes/often prevented from bringing petition concerning these before our Father, because either (a) in our sense of unworthiness before him we do not dare to ask for his special favor; or (b) we are in part morally and spiritually blind and thus do not have the open, discerning eyes to recognize what we truly are and need as we stand before God.

Let us end on a high note.

Despite our blindness, unworthiness, infirmities and ignorance, because we have received the precious Gospel of the Father concerning his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, for his sake and his alone, we humbly pray to the Father:”Vouchsafe (graciously grant) to us each day all that we need for body, soul and spirit in order to be thy loving, faithful and obedient children, for thy honor and glory.”

Trinity XXII 2008

Real Prayer, devotional and effectual

2008-11-03T13:50:00.000-06:00

Amongst committed Christians, it is commonplace to hear the following kinds of claims with respect to the nature of prayers [of petition]:

If we pray in the name of Jesus, God the Father will hear [and answer] our prayer.

If we pray in the name of Jesus and according to God’s will, God the Father will hear [and answer] our prayer.

If we pray in faith claiming the promise(s) of God, God the Father will hear [and answer] our prayer.

It is also commonplace to hear such explanatory comments as the following:

God’s response to our petition may be “yes” or “no” or “not yet,” but he will answer.

Let us now imagine a congregation of say 100 persons and get a sense of the number and variety of prayers offered that ask for something. First of all, take the public worship of this local church. In it there will normally be a form of prayer that is primarily of petition and intercession, where the focus is upon asking God to intervene in situations, to bless different persons and people, to heal the sick, to prosper the proclamation of the Gospel, to edify the church(es) and so on.

Further, together with the congregation speaking to the Master as one body and household, each individual member present on the Lord’s Day also offers from within the assembly his own prayers of petition, for this and for that according to need and necessity.

Then, of course, there are the many prayers offered outside the public worship in the family prayers and individual prayers of the members throughout the week.

The Lord’s Prayer itself used many times also includes several wide-ranging petitions—e.g., “thy kingdom come.”

So, all in all, we are imagining here thousands of different prayers in the name of Jesus addressed to God the Father by people in various stages of Christian pilgrimage and maturity. If we could hear and analyze all these petitions and intercessions, perhaps the majority of them would fit into several basic categories—e.g., for healing of the sick, for children to grow up reverencing and loving God, for evangelism and church growth, and so on.

Here, with the hope of taking forward our thinking I want to introduce an ancient collect, rendered from Latin into the traditional English language of prayer.

“O GOD, our Refuge and Strength, who art the author of all devotion; Be ready, we beseech thee, to hear the devout prayers of thy Church; and grant that those things which we ask faithfully we may obtain effectually; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” [See further, The Book of Common Prayer, 1662, Trinity XXIII]

From this profound, short prayer I want to focus initially on two phrases: “author of all devotion” and “devout prayers.”

All real stirrings of genuine faith, hope and love in our hearts: all desires and intentions to serve, obey, trust, thank and praise God; and all inward and outward movements towards adoration and worship of God are to be traced to God as their source—that is of the Father working through his Spirit in the hearts of his people. Thus God is the “author of all devotion” (or “godliness”) and, of course, he expects his people to work with him in this matter!

“Devout prayers” are prayers that have their origins in the cleansing and renewing work of the Spirit of the Father and of the Son in the souls of his baptized people. Such prayers are of varying kinds but since they are inspired by God we are to believe that they are actually heard by God.

We are now ready to move on now to reflect on the words: “Grant that those things which we ask faithfully we may obtain effectually.” From this petition we are reminded that there are further, important spiritual additions to what we have already noted (that God the author of true devotion hears the prayers of his devout people) in terms of the answering of prayer. Here the two key words are “Grant” and “faithfully.”

The use of the verb “grant” of God the Father makes clear that none of us deserves, or has a right to anything, that we ask for; rather, it is solely in the goodness and wisdom of God to give it out of pure, eternal mercy. This attitude of deep humility in the devout must be a major part of the ethos of their prayer.

“Faithfully” points to prayer that is not only from Christian believers who trust in God through Jesus Christ, but is also a prayer that is characterized by, and filled with, living, dynamic faith—including often an inner conviction that which is asked for is truly God’s will to give.

In this way and by this form of prayer, the church effectively obtains that for which it asks the Father in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

I conclude by making an observation that addresses the real, daily and weekly pastoral situation, within western churches, that we seem to get more “answers” to prayer that are in the “no” and “not yet” category than the “yes” one.

Observation

I suggest that we do not make a sufficiently clear distinction in our teaching and practice concerning petitionary/intercessory prayer between (a) devout prayers being heard by God (the emphasis here is upon God hearing them and being pleased to receive them); and (b) devout prayers that are filled with and characterized by faith/trust being not only heard but also answered effectively by the God of all mercy and grace.

Take prayers for healing of the body offered by a congregation, its pastors or a visiting evangelist/healer. Why is it—and this seems to be true in the West at least—that there are, comparatively speaking, so few examples of genuine healings (whether or not modern medicine is involved) and so many examples of disappointed petitioners? Devout prayers are offered and heard by God, we believe, and these please him, but that is all we can be sure about in any given case, unless there is present (as the gift of the Spirit) the genuine, real prayer of humility and faith.

An example of a prayer that was filled with real faith and expectation of an effective answer is found in Acts 12:6 ff. – the story of Peter in prison and his amazing exit as the local church prayed for his release.

Peter Toon Trinity XXII 2008

York: a Lament for the York in modern defining of the global the Anglican Communion.

2008-11-03T13:45:00.002-06:00

A Cry for the Beloved Country in the neglect of York as the See of the North (known initially by the Romans as Eboracum) from Peter Toon, Yorkshireman

The Church of England has two provinces, one in the south of the country, centered on Canterbury, and one in the north-east of the country, centered on York. Each of these cities has an archbishop named after the cities. The Archbishop of Canterbury is known historically as the Primate of all England, and the Archbishop of York is known historically as the Primate of England. The slight difference in title points to the fact that Canterbury is first in order and authority of the hierarchy in the Church of England. This explains why he has a residence in London, Lambeth Palace, within easy distance of the Houses of Parliament (where he is a member of the House of Lords) and royal palaces (where the monarch is often in residence).

In terms of the worldwide Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury has always had the lead role in the fellowship of international Churches known now as the Global Anglican Communion of Churches. In the last forty years he has increasingly been known as “the first instrument of unity” (where “instrument” means “a person who is made use of” for a specific purpose). Further, the See (meaning “the place in which a cathedral church stands”) of Canterbury has been consistently referred to within Global Communion-talk as though this See is the only See in the mother Church of the Communion, the ecclesia anglicana. But it is not! Perhaps you remember name the place where the man whom we now call “Constantine the Great” began his journey to Rome in the early fourth century. It was York and here is also, as we noted above, is one of the two Sees of the Church of England.

But is there any way that the See and province of York is specifically or distinctly associated with the very definition of the Global Anglican Communion of Churches? That is, other than being a half of the Church of England, which as a whole entity is obviously in that Communion as the Mother Church? Yes there is!

For the answer we turn to The Revised Catechism (1962) a revision of the Catechism in The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. It is important to note that this Catechism was published before the beginnings of the move to new modern liturgy, to so-called contemporary language for language, and to the expansion of the Anglican Family of Churches in the 1970s and following. It belongs to the pre-modern reality of the ecclesia anglicana. Further, it was composed by a Commission set up by both Archbishops, and it was authorized in January 1962 for seven years use by the Convocations of Canterbury and York (who met together as a governing body before the arrival of the Synod of the Church of England a little later).

Obviously there is nothing in the original Catechism of 1662 about the Anglican Communion for it did not exist; and it is not mentioned in revived Catechisms of Canada and other provinces; however, in that of England and Wales 1962 it it was a topic about which those being confirmed ought to be informed. Thus there is this basic question followed by a revealing answer:

“What is the Anglican Communion?

“The Anglican Communion is a family of Churches within the universal Church of Christ, maintaining apostolic doctrine and order and in full communion with one another and with the Sees of Canterbury and York.”

Not surprisingly a Commission representing the province of York as well as Canterbury would and should include “in full communion with the See of York.” And the Church of England, let us not forget, is one Church with two provinces, and both are provinces in the full ecclesial and theological meaning of the word “province.”

Regrettably after the revolutionary 1960s and early 1970s, in which the Anglican Way changed much, especially in the West, “full communion with York” got apparently forgotten, and the new entrants into the global Anglican Communion, usually from the previous British colonies, were not told about it. They simply learned that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the primary instrument (an odd word for most of them) of unity. And this they accepted seemingly without much question until the new question of the new millennium arose with vengeance—which is a story that has often been told recently and need not be repeated here.

I have one more thing to say about Yorkshire..

As one who was born near the city of York, and who was ordained deacon and priest in the province of York, I protest about the demise of York from the Anglican Communion pedigree! I dream of what could be achieved if from the 1970s York could have been designated the Secondary Instrument of Union of the Anglican Communion, with special responsibility for convening and chairing the Primates’ Meeting on a regular basis!

I lament for YORK; AND I SEE DIMLY A NEW VOCATION FOR IT IN THE REALIGNMENT OF THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION AND THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

The Revd Dr Peter Toon October 11, 2008.

On the NAME of GOD: LORD, YHVH, YHWH

2008-09-28T19:10:00.000-05:00

Protestant Evangelicals and not a few Catholics have got used to seeking to pronounce the revealed NAME of God, Hebrew YHWH, by adding vowels so that it becomes YAHWEH One hears this usage in talks, sermons and prayers.

It is wholly against Jewish tradition and theology and also contrary to the historic way of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The present Pope/Vatican via one of the Vatican Offices has issued a Letter on this topic which is most useful for both Catholics and Protestants. It commends and explains the historic, classic Christian approach and I commend it to my friends.

Here is the link for the CDF directive 'on the name of God'

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/NameOfGod.pdf

Roman Mass, latest approved translation ready for use soon:TAKE A LOOK

2008-09-28T16:02:00.001-05:00

Roman Mass,

latest approved translation into English by USA RC bishops and approved by Vatican to be used in all USA R C Churches in a few month’s time

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/OrdoMissaeWhiteBook.pdf

Some of us are glad to see this beginning of a major revision of the bad translation now in use in the R C Church in the English-speaking lands.

What I noticed noticed at once are the following (a) a more reverential language in contrast to the “street” language of the present rite; (b) a better rendering of the Gloria at the beginning of Mass; (c) “And with you spirit” for “also with you”; (d) “I believe” as the translation of Credo in the Creeds not the plural “we” as in the present text and (e) the “passing of the peace” publicly is “if appropriate” and not mandatory.

I shall do a fuller review when I have the strength! The whole Missal is not yet ready for publication in the USA for it is still being revised.

Peter Toon Trinity XIX 2008

Archbishop's Pastoral Letter to Bishops of the Anglican Communion

2008-08-26T11:25:00.002-05:00

Posted On : August 26, 2008 2:12 PM | Posted By : Admin ACO
Related Categories: Lambeth LC2008

ACNS: http://aco.org/acns/news.cfm/2008/8/26/ACNS4514

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has today sent a letter to the bishops of the Anglican Communion, setting out his personal reflections on the Lambeth Conference.

The full text of the letter can be found below:

As the Lambeth Conference of 2008 comes to an end, I want to offer some further reflections of my own on what the bishops gathered in Canterbury have learned and experienced. Those of you who have been present here will be able to share your own insights with your people, but it may be useful for me to add my own perspectives as to where we have been led.

For the vast majority of bishops, it seems, this has been a time when they have felt God to have been at work. The Conference was not a time for making new laws or for binding decisions; in spite of the way some have expressed their expectations, Lambeth Conferences have never worked straightforwardly in this way. The Conference Design Group believed strongly that the chief need of our Communion at the moment was the rebuilding of relationships - the rebuilding of trust in one another - and of confidence in our Anglican identity. And it was with this in mind that they planned for a very different sort of Conference, determined to allow every bishop's voice to be heard and to seek for a final outcome for which the bishops were genuinely able to recognize an authentic account of their own work.

I believe that the Conference succeeded in doing this to a very remarkable degree - more than most people expected. At the end of our time together, many people, especially some of the newer bishops, said that they had been surprised by the amount of convergence they had seen. And there can be no doubt that practically all who were present sincerely wanted the Communion to stay together.

But they also recognized the challenge in staying together and the continuing possibility of further division. As the proposals for an Anglican Covenant now go forward, it is still possible that some will not be able to agree; there was a clear sense that some sort of covenant will help our identity and cohesion, although the bishops wish to avoid a legalistic or juridical tone. A strong majority of bishops present agreed that moratoria on same-sex blessings and on cross-provincial interventions were necessary, but they were aware of the conscientious difficulties this posed for some, and there needs to be a greater clarity about the exact expectations and what can be realistically implemented. How far the intensified sense of belonging together will help mutual restraint in such matters remains to be seen. But it can be said that few of those who attended left without feeling they had in some respects moved and changed.

We were conscious of the absence of many of our colleagues, and wanted to express our sadness that they felt unable to be with us and our desire to build bridges and restore our fellowship. We were aware also of the recent meeting in Jerusalem and its statements; many of us expressed a clear sense of affinity with much that was said there and were grateful that many had attended both meetings, but we know that there is work to do to bring us closer together and are determined to do that work.

The final document of Conference Reflections is not a 'Report' in the style of earlier Conferences, but an attempt to present an honest account of what was discussed and expressed in the 'indaba' groups which formed the main communal work of the Conference by the Reflections Group. But although this document is not a formal Report, it has a number of pointers as to where the common goals and assumptions are in the Communion. Let me mention some of these.

First, there was an overwhelming unity around the need for the Church to play its full part in the worldwide struggle against poverty ignorance and disease. The Millennium Development Goals were repeatedly stressed, and there was universal agreement that both governmental and non-governmental development agencies needed to create more effective partnerships with the churches and to help the churches increase and improve their own capacity to deliver change for the sake of justice. To further this, it was agreed that we needed a much enhanced capacity in the Communion for co-ordinated work in the field of development. Our Walk of Witness in London and the memorable address of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom formed a powerful focus for these concerns. And the challenge to every bishop to identify clear goals for developing environmentally responsible policies in church life was articulated very forcefully indeed: information was provided to all about how the 'carbon footprint' of the Conference itself might be offset, and new impetus given to careful and critical self-examination of all our practices. We were reminded by first-hand testimony that the literal survival of many of our most disadvantaged communities was at risk as a result of environmental change. This enabled us to see the issue more clearly as one of justice both to God's earth and to God's people

Second, on the controversial issue of the day regarding human sexuality, there was a very widely-held conviction that premature or unilateral local change was risky and divisive, in spite of the diversity of opinion expressed on specific questions. There was no appetite for revising Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998, though there was also a clear commitment to continue theological and pastoral discussion of the questions involved. In addition to a widespread support for moratoria in the areas already mentioned, there was much support for the idea of a 'Pastoral Forum' as a means of addressing present and future tensions, and as a clearing house for proposals concerning the care of groups at odds with dominant views within their Provinces, so as to avoid the confusing situation of violations of provincial boundaries and competing jurisdictions.

Importantly, it was recognized that all these matters involved serious reflection on the Christian doctrine of human nature and a continuing deepening of our understanding of Christian marriage. A joint session with bishops and spouses also reminded us that broader moral issues about power and violence in relations between men and women needed attention if we were to speak credibly to the tensions and sufferings of those we serve.

Third, there was a general desire to find better ways of managing our business as a Communion. Many participants believed that the indaba method, while not designed to achieve final decisions, was such a necessary aspect of understanding what the questions might be that they expressed the desire to see the method used more widely - and to continue among themselves the conversations begun in Canterbury. This is an important steer for the meetings of the Primates and the ACC which will be taking place in the first half of next year, and I shall be seeking to identify the resources we shall need in order to take forward some of the proposals about our structures and methods.

The Conference was richly blessed in its guest speakers, who all testified to their appreciation of the Anglican heritage, while asking us searching questions about how flexible and creative our evangelistic policies were, about the integration of our social passion with our theology and about the nature of the unity we were seeking both within the Anglican Communion and with other Christian families. Our many ecumenical representatives played a full and robust part in all our work together and we owe them a considerable debt.

Finally and most importantly of all, we were held within an atmosphere of steady and deep prayer by our Chaplaincy Team. The commitment of the Conference members to daily worship was impressive; and this has much to do with the quality of that worship, both in moments of profound quiet and in exuberant celebration. It mattered greatly that we were able to begin with a period of retreat in the context of Canterbury Cathedral; the welcome we received there was immensely generous and we all valued the message clearly given, that this was our Cathedral, and that all of us were a full part of the worshipping community that had been here since Augustine came to Canterbury in 597.

I know that all present would wish me to express thanks once again to all who planned and organized the Conference, to those who composed the Bible Studies, those who devised and monitored the work of the indaba groups and all others who served us so devotedly in all sorts of ways - not least the Stewards, whose youthful energy and commitment and unfailingly supportive presence gave all of us great hope for the future. Thanks to all of you - bishops and spouses - who attended, for the great commitment shown and for the encouragement you have given each other.

But together we give thanks to God for his presence with us, his faithfulness to us and his gifts to our Communion. As was said in the closing plenary session, we believe that God has many more gifts to give to and through our Communion; and we ask his grace and assistance in teaching us how to receive what he wills to give. 'He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness.' (2 Cor. 9v10)

Your servant in Christ

+Rowan Cantuar:

The Lambeth Conference reflections document may be found at:
http://www.lambethconference.org/reflections/document.cfm

___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is
distributed to more than 8,000 journalists and other readers around
the world.

For subscription INFORMATION please go to:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnslist.cfm

Canterbury defended by fellow English Bishops

2008-08-09T15:04:00.001-05:00

(What the English bishops cannot deny and cannot remove from the record is that Rowan Willliams does hold NOW a favorable view of certain forms of same-sex relations--not all such but some- and though he places them in a category below holy matrimony, he still thinks that they can participate in God's love and holiness. To go this far is to go where the Holy Scriptures and Moral Theology have never [until modern times] gone and is to open the door to a larger embrace of same-sex unions.I cannot see how in full conscience Rowan can as Primate and Primary Instrument of Unity believe, teach and confess the official doctrine of the Anglican Communion which allows for NO same-sex partnerships. Peter Toon August 9)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4487712.ece

August 9, 2008

The vital importance of working for church unity
Many bishops believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been misrepresented

Sir, As bishops in the Church of England, we wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at what we regard as a gross misrepresentation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

First, your front-page story (August 7) and the further material inside were presented as though he had just made a fresh statement, whereas the letters now leaked were written, in a private and personal context, between seven and eight years ago (this only became apparent six paragraphs into the report). One can only wonder at the motives behind releasing, and highlighting, these letters at this precise moment – and at the way in which some churchmen are seeking to make capital of them as though they were ‘news’.

Second, Dr Williams did not say ‘gay sex is good as marriage’ (your front-page headline) or ‘equivalent to marriage’ (your inside headline). In his first letter, he concluded that a same-sex relation ship ‘might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage’. This proposal (whether or not one agrees with it, as many of us do not) is far more cautious in content, and tentative in tone, than is implied by both the articles and the headlines. In the second letter, Dr Williams stresses that same-sex relation ships are not the same as marriage, ‘because marriage has other dimensions to do with children and society’.

Third, the Archbishop has said repeatedly, as he did in one of the letters, that there is a difference between ‘thinking aloud’ as a theologian and the task of a bishop (let alone an Archbishop) to uphold the church’s teaching. He has regularly insisted, as he did in his closing address at Lambeth, that the church is right to have a basic ‘unwillingness to change what has been received in faith from scripture and tradition.’ He has spoken out frequently against the ‘foot-in-the-door’ tactic of divisive innovation such as the consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire. As he said in that same closing address, ‘the practice and public language of the Church act always as a reminder that the onus of proof is on those who seek a new understanding’. Nor, despite regular accusations, is this prioritising of the bishop’s task mere pragmatism or the pursuit of a ‘quixotic goal’ of Anglican unity. It expresses what Jesus himself taught: the fundamental and deeply biblical teaching on the vital importance of church unity and of working for that unity by humility and mutual submission.

Fourth, Dr Williams has also stressed in many contexts that the church must be prepared to stand out against social trends where they do not reflect or embody the gospel. Mary Ann Sieghart’s extraordinary suggestion that the church ‘must eventually reflect the society within which it works’ is a recipe for a blatant Erastianism, against which the Archbishop has resolutely set his face. It is ironic to hear those who would hate to see the church being the Tory party at prayer insisting that it must now be New Labour at prayer.

Fifth, the Archbishop pointed out, in an interview with a Dutch newspaper two years ago, that ‘inclusion’ – that regular mantra of gay lobbyists – is not ‘a value in itself’. We do not, he said, simply welcome people into the church without asking questions. ‘Conversion’, he said, ‘means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions.’ In that same interview he pointed out that the views he had earlier advocat ed ‘did not generate much support and [raised] a lot of criticism – quite fairly on a number of points.’

In his invitations to the Lambeth Conference, Dr Williams insisted that he saw the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Anglican Covenant as the tracks along which the Communion should move. Neither of those in any way points in the direction your articles indicated. In his final Presidential address to the Conference, he articulated clearly and sharply where we now are as a church: the reaffirmation of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the way, the truth and the life; the reaffirmation of the previous Lambeth resolution on sexual behaviour; the moratoria on same-sex blessings, on consecration of any more practising homosexuals as bishops, and on the incursions by bishops into one another’s territories; the Anglican Covenant; and some key interim arrangements while that Covenant undergoes further drafting. He presented these, in the context of a powerful and clearly thought out address, as the fresh articulation of the mind of the church, not as an opinion which he was bound to express but from which he privately wanted to dissent. He has our full and unqualified support in his magnificent leadership both of the Church of England and of the Anglican Communion as we seek to obey God’s call to take the gospel to the whole world.

The Right Rev Dr Tom Wright
Bishop of Durham

The Right Rev David Urquhart
Bishop of Birmingham

The Right Rev Nicholas Reade
Bishop of Blackburn

The Right Rev David James
Bishop of Bradford

The Right Rev Graham Dow
The Bishop of Carlisle

The Right Rev John Gladwin
Bishop of Chelmsford

The Right Rev Geoffrey Rowell
Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe

The Right Rev Anthony Priddis
Bishop of Hereford

The Right Rev Jonathan Gledhill
Bishop of Lichfield

The Right Rev Graham James
Bishop of Norwich

The Right Rev John Pritchard
Bishop of Oxford

The Right Rev Kenneth Stevenson
Bishop of Portsmouth

The Right Rev John Packer
Bishop of Ripon and Leeds

The Right Rev George Cassidy
Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham

The Right Rev Nigel Stock
Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich

The Right Rev Stephen Platten
Bishop of Wakefield

The Right Rev John Stroyan
Bishop of Warwick

The Right Rev Michael Scott-Joynt
Bishop of Winchester

The Right Rev John Inge
Bishop of Worcester

On Same-Sex “covenanted and faithful” Partnerships and the Love of God, as seen from the See of Canterbury.

2008-08-08T11:01:00.001-05:00

Is a Bishop truly able to hold in his heart and mind two differing and opposing views, one that of personal conviction and the other of the public stance of his church?

A DISCUSSION STARTER

May I ask my reader to be patient, and come with me on a brief journey of clarification, by setting a broad context, to try to get some perspective on this question before we answer it.

(a) In the world of industry, I may work for Ford making trucks and join with my fellow-workers in saying how great are Ford trucks; but it may be my private conviction that GM trucks are best and thus I buy such for my family. Nothing wrong with this, except I miss the discount in buying Ford!

(b) In the world of sport, I may live in a certain city and join with family and friends in the public and vocal support of the local baseball and football teams, as though these were the only teams for me; but in my heart my favorite teams may be those of the city where I was born, a thousand miles from where I currently live. Nothing wrong here, except if my local friends find out I may pay a price!

(c) In the world of weekly church attendance, I may go with my family and friends to a certain evangelical church where I feel comfortable and accepted, where the preaching and singing/music are robust, and where there is a strong sense of service to the community. To my friends I appear reasonably or even fully contented; yet in my heart I long for a different kind of religious experience, weekly attendance at the fullness of the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church (of which I have read in Russian novels and seen on DVD). Nothing wrong here’ except if my friends knew this they would probably think me very odd indeed and needing counseling!

Now we need to look at some examples involving moral and spiritual principles, which apply both privately to a person and in and for the group in which he is involved.

(1) Take the pastor, who regularly organizes his people to go on “pro-life” marches and demonstrations, insisting in his exhortation that human life begins at conception and the baby (foetus) in the womb must be treated as a human being with rights and be protected. However, there is another side to this pastor’s moral principles. When he found that his wife was pregnant and that it was clear that the baby would be born with major defects and problems, he insisted that she have an abortion quietly and in a center far away, for they could not on their busy schedules care for a severely handicapped child.

Such events have a way of leaking out and people getting to know. And in this case when it does then the moral leadership of the pastor disappears.

(2) Take the rector who regularly meets heterosexual couples who are living together, and who come to him to discuss the possibility of baptism for a child, church-membership or marriage. If he takes the strict view of the meaning of fornication found in the New Testament and Moral Theology, it is possible that he will urge them to separate, to change moral direction, and later to marry (if that seems right) and be church members. However, it is also possible that such are the societal pressures on him that he will forget his high principles, will welcome them, make no critical reference to “their living in sin” and proceed to do for them whatever they ask of him.

When this rector has compromised a few times and a growing number of people know, he will not any longer be able to preach with power and conviction the moral laws and commandments of the Lord our God. Why? Because he will know that many of his people know that he does not really believe these commandments of God, except perhaps as ideals for a different age!

(3) Take the Anglican Bishop who, as a member of the College/House of Bishops, is thereby committed to their agreed policy of not allowing a divorced person, whose spouse is alive, to be married in church. His own view would make various exceptions and is more liberal; but he refuses to implement it in his diocese because he believes it is duty to implement the joint-rule of the whole House.

In this case the difference between the doctrine/policy of the House and his own position is a difference within a given spectrum, not a wholly different doctrine. And the Bishop presumably can stand before Jesus the Lord with a clear conscience in this area. This is because he holds the full doctrine of Christian marriage as right, good and true, and teaches the same: however, how to care pastorally for those who have failed and after penitence wish to make a new start is not of easy answer, and various possibilities are open, and it is here where he differs from others.

(4) Take the Lutheran pastor, who has come to the remarkable conclusion through his own individual study, that salvation is wholly by works (good deeds) and faith is a good work. However, he knows that to preach or teach this will cause many problems in his circle and so he decides (a) to keep it to himself and a small group of friends and (b) to preach and teach the official Lutheran Confessional Doctrine that Justification is by Faith alone on all public occasions.

Here we have a case where what the Lutheran minister really and truly believes is that “salvation of wholly by works;” but that he is willing to keep this to himself and offer to his congregation and denomination the traditional Lutheran line of “faith alone.” Here what is true for himself is not what is true for others!

Dr Rowan Williams

The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it known himself, and others have confirmed it, that he has actually long believed that a same-sex couple in a faithful, covenanted partnership can be a genuine manifestation of the love of God; and thus this union is not contrary to the moral law of God or a threat to Christian marriage.

This he describes as his personal, private opinion, which he generally keeps to himself and does not publicly propagate, except in remarks and comments in restricted circles.

In contrast, he also holds in his capacity as the Primate of all England and the “titular head” of the Anglican Communion of Churches a responsibility to teach and propagate the doctrine of sexuality approved by a large majority at the Lambeth Conference of 1998, and further approved by individual Provinces, and taken as a base-line and developed by The Windsor Report. Here it is important to be very clear that this public, official Anglican doctrine has no place whatsoever in it for same-sex relations/partnerships within the Church—indeed they are always wrong whatever their quality.

Thus in his public capacity Dr Williams teaches and propagates a traditional doctrine which includes within it the condemnation of the doctrine that he holds as a private person. One can only speculate as to the conflict that this causes in his soul.

The question arises: Which of the two doctrines does Rowan really believe? Which one is for him the bringing into a meaningful form both the truth of God from Scripture and what reason tells us about the human condition as sexual? Which of the two teachings is truly in his heart as well as his mind?

One may never know the answer to this question!

However, one can see in recent decisions made by Rowan and through commitments of his, what seem to be evidence for the changing priority of each of his views. For example, the fact that he invited (a) all the American consecrators of Gene Robinson and (b) all the USA bishops who have been allowing the blessing of same-sex couples in their dioceses, to Lambeth 08 seems to proclaim one thing. But the strong and passionate call he made at Lambeth 08 for a moratorium on both same-sex blessings and the electing and consecrating bishops in same-sex relations points in another. Of course, one can read these decisions politically and leave the matter there.

My own reading of the human heart is that a doctrine held with conviction cannot be hidden all the time. It will make itself known in all kinds of little ways, and sometimes in big ways. Thus if Rowan does hold with inner conviction the doctrine that same-sex couples can and do exhibit the love of God then this indicates who he is and where he is. And, therefore, however hard he pushes the public doctrine and the policies of Lambeth 08 on moratoria, it will always be the case that he is internally fighting against himself. And he will never be able with full heart, mind and will to press the official Anglican doctrine.

Dr Peter Toon August 8, 2008 drpetertoon@yahoo.com

Rowan's personal views different from his views as theologian on Homosexuality

2008-08-06T20:36:00.001-05:00

(What we have long time known now once more out in the open and sure to raise problems for Rowan --P.T.)

August 6, 2008

Rowan Williams: gay relationships 'comparable to marriage'
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Rowan Williams believes that gay sexual relationships can “reflect the love of God” in a way that is comparable to marriage, The Times has learnt.

Gay partnerships pose the same ethical questions as those between a man and woman and the key issue for Christians is that they are faithful and lifelong, he believes.
Dr Williams is known to be personally liberal on the issue but the strength of his views, revealed in private correspondence shown to The Times, will astonish his critics.

The disclosure threatens to reopen bitter divisions over ordaining gay priests which pushed the Anglican Communion towards a split, as conservatives seek uphold the Biblical opposition to homosexuality.

As Archbishop of Canterbury, he recommitted the Anglican Communion to its orthodox position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture at the Lambeth Conference which closed on Sunday.

In an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, Dr Williams describes his belief that Biblical passages criticising homosexual sex are not aimed at people who are gay by nature.

Instead, he argues that scriptural prohibitions are addressed “to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience”.

He says: “I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.”

Although written before he became Archbishop of Canterbury in 2002, Dr Williams describes his view in the letters as his “definitive conclusion” reached after 20 years of study and prayer. He refers to it as his “conviction”.

He draws a distinction between his own beliefs as a theologian, which are liberal, and his position as a church leader for which he must take account of the traditionalist view of the majority of Anglicans. He has stuck to this position ever since.

“If I’m asked for my views, as a theologian rather than a church leader, I have to be honest and admit that they are as I’ve said,” he writes.

The letters, written in the autumn of 2000 and 2001, were exchanged with Dr Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian, who lives within his former archdiocese in south Wales and wrote challenging him on the issue.

In reply, Dr Williams describes how his view changed from that of opposing to gay relationships when, in 1980, his mind became “unsettled” by contact as university teacher with Christian students who believed the Bible forbade promiscuity not gay sex.

Dr Williams, who was ordained priest in 1978, became a lecturer at Cambridge two years later and was appointed Dean of Clare College in 1984.

He writes that by the end of the 1980s he had “definitely come to the conclusion” that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between people who happened to be gay.

He cites two academics as also pivotal in influencing his view, one of whom ironically is Dr Jeffrey John, the celibate homosexual whom he later forced to withdraw as Bishop of Reading after an outcry from conservative evangelicals.

Until now the clearest statement of Dr Williams’ liberal views was an essay, The Body's Grace, published in 1989 in which he argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant it acknowledge the validity of non-procreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.

But he provoked criticism from liberals in the Church of England, and the United States in particular, for seeming to backtrack once he became Archbishop of Canterbury.

Liberals have been bitterly disappointed that a man they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda instead abiding by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.

Liberals from the US Episcopal Church, who see the issue as one of justice for an oppressed minority, were particularly distressed at the Lambeth Conference when the Archbishop appeared to blame them for the growing rift in the Church.

His leadership at Lambeth was a success because, while he failed to resolve the differences in the Church, he avoided outright schism. In spite of everything he has done to maintain unity, however, conservatives are still reluctant to trust Dr Williams because of his theological stance.

In the correspondence, he writes of his regret that the issue has become 'very much politicised' and is treated by many as 'the sole or primary marker of Christian orthodoxy.'

Asked for a response, Lambeth Palace yesterday quoted a recent interview the Archbishop told the Church of England Newspaper: “When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why.”

As Marriage Declines, Church Attendance Falls

2008-08-06T20:33:00.002-05:00

by Devon Williams, associate editor, CitizenLink

'Marriage is a gateway into family life, and family life, in turn, is often a gateway into church attendance.'

A dramatic decline in marriage, particularly among young adults, has led to a decline in church attendance over the last three decades, according to a study by Robert Wuthnow, a sociology professor at Princeton University.

Men are 57 percent less likely to regularly attend church if they are not married. Single women are 41 percent less likely to attend church than their married counterparts.

"It exaggerates only a little to say that Americans in their 20s and early 30s divide into two groups of about equal size: those who are married, the majority of whom participate in religion; and those who are not married, the majority of whom do not participate," Wuthnow said at a conference at The Heritage Foundation.

Brad Wilcox, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, said the biggest factor driving the decline in church attendance is delayed marriage.

"Marriage is a gateway into family life, and family life, in turn, is often a gateway into church attendance," he said. "The longer people postpone marriage, the less likely they are to attend church at a given age, and also the less likely they are to attend church down the road."

Wuthnow estimates in his book, After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty-Somethings are Shaping the Future of American Religion, that American churches would have 6.3 million more young adults today if young people started families at the same rate they did 30 years ago.

Wilcox said the Church needs to be more intentional about promoting marriage at an earlier age.

"One thing churches need to do is to really encourage their teenagers and their young adults not to buy into this culture of 'hooking up' and even the culture of dating or just hanging out," he said. "(Churches need) to create a culture of courtship that puts them on a path to marriage, for those who are called to marriage.

"I think connecting young adults to families who have different priorities and different challenges and different joys would help them see the world a little bit differently, and hopefully grow in their faith at the same time."

Lambeth Conference Q&A: What has it achieved?

2008-08-04T09:34:00.002-05:00

What LAMBETH 08 achieved – in a nutshell (written for British readers but most useful as a short summary of how Rowan’s plan triumphed at Lambeth and now has to prove itself in real places) -- P.T.

Lambeth Conference Q&A: What has it achieved?

By Martin Beckford The Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:27PM BST 03 Aug 2008

Why was this meeting so important?

The Lambeth Conference, a gathering of all Anglican bishops, only takes place once every 10 years. At the last one, a resolution was agreed stating that homosexuality goes against the Bible's teaching. But since then, the American church elected an openly gay bishop while the church in Canada ruled that same-sex unions could be blessed publicly.

So what new resolutions were made in Canterbury over the past three weeks?

None. The organisers felt it would be more constructive to allow the bishops to talk about their differences rather than cast votes or draft documents. They spent most of their days in small 'Indaba' groups of 40 talking about a range of topics, rather than in large sessions making statements.

Does that mean that nothing happened?

No. Most of the bishops feel they have benefited from the opportunity to discuss their differences, and some progress has been made on projects that the Archbishop of Canterbury believes will keep the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion together.

Although the conference was damaged by the decision of about 200 (one in four) bishops to stay away in protest at the presence of the liberal Americans, there were no walkouts or major new crises during the meeting. Meanwhile, a repeated call has been made for a halt to all ordinations of gay clergy, same-sex blessings and 'poaching' of bishops from other provinces.

What are these rescue projects?

Firstly a set of guiding principles of Anglicanism, to which all the 38 provinces are expected to agree, known as a Covenant. Those which do not agree to it may lose their place at important gatherings such as Lambeth.

A group called the 'pastoral forum' will also be developed to deal with crises over authority as they emerge, while a 'holding bay' will be set up for parishes that have defected from their national church, in the hope that they can return home eventually. The forum will be set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and headed by a bishop whom he will appoint.

All eyes will be on this pastoral forum to see if it really can act as a 'rapid response unit' to resolve future disputes.

What happens next?

Each of the Anglican Communion's 38 provinces - even the ones that boycotted the Lambeth Conference - have been given until the end of March to comment on the Covenant. The final report will be discussed at a meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, a body consisting of lay people as well as clergy, next May.

But the provinces will then each have to decide if they want to accept the Covenant. The approval of the Episcopal Church of the USA is crucial, but this may not take place until 2015 because of the timing of its general conventions.

What will happen in the meantime?

The orthodox Anglicans who formed the Gafcon movement at a summit in Jerusalem are likely to press ahead with the formation of their own council of Primates and a new North American province for traditionalists.

They insist they have not effected a schism but their absence from Lambeth, their dismissal of the current 'colonial' structure of Anglicanism and their establishment of new structures mean they are effectively operating a rival Communion.

Lambeth 2008: Was it worth it?

2008-08-04T09:31:00.002-05:00

From Anglican Mainstream

August 3rd, 2008

A final reflection on the Lambeth Conference 2008 by Fr Warren Tanghe

Bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered on the campus of the University of Kent at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury on July 16th for the once-every-ten-years Lambeth Conference.

During their first half-week together, they worshipped, ate, and studied Scripture together, and met in the Cathedral Church of Christ in Canterbury to hear the Archbishop’s retreat addresses. The pace was relaxed: old friends reconnected and new acquaintances were begun, as the bishops were invited to look beyond themselves and what they were about, to the presence and power of the living God.

The Conference proper began with the official opening service in the Cathedral on Sunday, the 20th. The bishops started meeting in indaba groups, in a process meant to foster open and honest speaking and respectful and attentive listening on a daily topic, in which every bishop’s voice would be heard. These groups were complemented by Self-Select Sessions, which offered presentations and opportunities for discussion on specific aspects of these topics. Noted speakers presented plenary addresses on evangelisation, mission, the ecological crisis, and covenant.

Read More

What is the MORAL STATUS of Not Crossing Provincial Boundaries? Is it the same as not performing Blessings of same-sex couples?

2008-08-02T23:06:00.002-05:00

The Anglican Communion has been asked to participate in three “moratoria” in order to bring some order and unity into relations between Provinces, which are presently divided from one another .

From the position of the Sacred Scriptures, their reading and interpretation in the Church over long centuries, and from the tradition of moral theology based on the Bible (and on natural law in some cases) what is being called for in two of the three “moratoria” is nothing less than the setting aside, the rejection, and the repudiation of immorality. For sexual relations between persons of the same sex are condemned outright in the Bible: in the New Testament it is stated that anyone involved in them will not enter the kingdom of God/heaven.

If the same-sex relations themselves constitute a sin before God for which the remedy is true repentance, what kind of an “act” is that of the local “Episcopal” church, which claims, in the Name of the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, to bless these persons in same-sex “covenanted” partnerships? The answer used to be understood to be simple, but not easy for us to face: it is a blasphemous act: it is taking the Name of God in vain; it is making the God of righteousness into the God who blesses immorality and wickedness; it is a religious act of such a serious nature that those performing it deserve immediate divine condemnation.

And, in similar vein, the Bishops of a Province or National Church (by whatever means, legal or illegal) who elect or approve a person in a same-sex relation to be a Bishop, and then proceed to “consecrate” that person, likewise commit a blasphemous act, taking the Name of God in vain, making the God of righteousness into the God who tolerates sin and wickedness, and making of a mockery of the Church’s Ordinal!

Now, if it be the case--as some modern very liberal scholars claim---there is a way to read the Bible, to study Christian Tradition, and to interpret Moral theology, that makes their united and persisting voice against this supposed “sexual immorality” questionable, or even null and void, then, of course, the situation has changed! You can now proclaim both the rightness of same-sex relations and of the church to approve and bless them in various ways! In general this is what many in The Episcopal Church now seem to do. They proclaim that there are different ways of reading the Bible and that their way yields the results which they follow!

[To understand this, See the book, To Set Our Hope on Christ, that was produced for the Anglican Consultative Council by a high level Episcopal theological team, led by the last Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold. This attempted by novel interpretation to neutralize the Bible’s (supposed) clear witness and justify the innovations of TEC: I replied to it in Same-Sex Affection…, available at www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from 1-800-727-1928].

From a traditional perspective—and here classic Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Southern Baptist agree—sexual relations between two persons of the same sex is sinful and any approval or blessing by the Church of such a partnership is also itself sinful—more sinful than the sin of the persons in the partnership! Thus we see that position of the liberal progressives in TEC and other mainline Churches is wholly innovatory and religiously is a most serious matter before God the Judge of all.

But what of CROSSING PROVINCIAL OR DIOCESAN BOUNDARIES?

At first glance, most would judge that the question of the rightness or wrongness of crossing boundaries, without formal permission, is not in the first place (and probably not in the second!) a moral question at all. And the reason for stating this is usually this: there is no Biblical commandment that specifically relates to such a matter, and that is true. We all know that it is only—centuries after the time of Jesus— that there is in place an elaborate structure of church polity and organization; only then are there provinces with dioceses existing alongside other such entities, and having rules to govern the relations of dioceses to dioceses within a Province and then between autonomous Provinces.

However, when the body of rules (CANON LAW) of a Province are in place, they are obviously and necessarily of varying kinds and importance. Some of them are treated as if they were moral law: this is because such rules are based upon and spell out the content of actual moral law for life in the church. Yet others may relate to, say, the dress of the clergy and, though important for good order, are not of the same importance as those touching on the moral behavior of the clergy.

So does the Provincial rule/canon law that says to the clergy of one province: “To minister in another Province, you must be properly invited and approved” have moral force? Yes, it does and in this specific sense. The peace and good order of the Church is part of its genuine life and witness s required by the Lord, and any act from outside, that has the effect of disturbing this good order, is contrary to the commandment to love the brethren, and against the the koinonia (communion)of the Gospel and Church.

However, the whole scene changes when the entry is into a Province where it is clearly the case that heresy and immortality are being taught and practiced, and where a godly laity with its pastors are being persecuted and are calling for help. Here there arises immediately both a spiritual and a moral duty for the “orthodox” Province to seek to do whatever is within its power to assist the forces of biblical orthodoxy and holiness in that neighboring Province. Yet, so that this is done decently and in order, such an intervention by one Province ought to be after prayerful consultation with other godly Provinces that have similar concerns about the erring Province.

Conclusion

In terms of the three so-called “moratoria,” we may conclude that the two of them, relating to sexual relations, most clearly belong to the moral realm of the revealed Law of God and his Righteousness, and so the total avoidance and complete rejection of them by baptized Christians is wholly required and pleasing to God.

However, in terms of the third “moratorium,” the non-entry into another Province expect by invitation, this may be seen as belonging to the moral realm if, and only if, we have in mind two biblically-orthodox Provinces alongside each other. And love of the brethren is the moral basis by each of the two Provinces for not disturbing fellow believers in the other Province.

In contrast, entry is required as a moral duty by one Province (or several as the case may be), if and only if, another Province is teaching and practicing heresy and immorality, and there is a cry of “Come over and help us!”

One notes that in the official talk at Lambeth 08 about the “moratoria” talk of the moral duty of driving out heresy and immorality from the life and witness of a Province was generally taboo! And that is why there had to be a GAFCON in June, and why the GAFCON mindset and spirit will continue in one form or another alongside the official Lambeth 08 position, as the Anglican Way struggles to remain a consistent and meaningful part/branch of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God the Father.

St Bartholomew the Apostle & Trinity XIV, 2008 Dr Peter Toon drpetertoon@yahoo.com

Bishops back Archbishop Rowan Williams and still see value in being in Communion

2008-08-02T23:00:00.002-05:00

From Times Online

August 2, 2008

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

The Archbishop of Canterbury has the overwhelming support of bishops at the Lambeth Conference, according to a survey for The Times.

However, one quarter of Anglican bishops at the meeting in Canterbury, Kent, are unsure that he is providing the leadership needed to save the Church from schism.

Few bishops support the idea of solving the church's differences by changing the Anglican Communion to a looser federation.

Three-quarters of those at the conference are happy with Dr Rowan Williams' leadership.
The survey is published today as Dr Rowan Williams defended himself against the charge of being a relic of colonialism made by Uganda Primate, Archbishop Henry Orombi, in The Times.
Dr Williams said in an interview that most Africans had more important things on their mind than gay sex.

'The overwhelming concern of most Africans is clean water, food, employment, transparent governance.'

Dr Williams will tomorrow give more details of the proposed new Pastoral Forum, a body that act as a clearing house for future disputes in the Anglican Communion.

Religious Intelligence surveyed 100 of the 670 bishops at the conference for The Times. More than nine in 10 bishops at the conference feel there is still value in being in the Communion, despite its current difficulties.

Nearly one in four believes there would be value in being in a looser federation of churches instead, but the vast majority wants to remain in the more structured communion.

The survey does not reflect the views of the 230 bishops and archbishops, mainly from Africa, who have boycotted the conference, which ends tomorrow.

But of those present, it shows that three-quarters believe that Dr Williams is providing the leadership that is needed and nine out of 10 believe there is much to be learned from dialogue with different faiths.

Just one-third cannot remember a worse time for the church in their lifetime, athough four in 10 believe the church has been through a worse time in living memory.

One quarter support the recent declaration from the rival conservative Global Anglican Conference in Jerusalem. A similar number also believe there is no hope of a 'via media' solution for Anglicans, two findings which give possible indications of troubled times for Dr Williams in the months ahead.

The survey showed confusion among delegates about whether people are born gay or not. More than four in 10 said they were, a third said they were not and a quarter did not know.

More than half those surveyed were also critical of the Church's efforts in Zimbabwe, with 58 per cent saying the Church had not done enough to help the people there.

The bishops were equally divided over the founding doctrines of Anglicanism, summarised in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. Four in 10 said they did provide a test of Anglican orthodoxy, but a similar number said they did not.

In an interview with Ecumenical News International, Dr Williams rejected Archbishop Orombi's claims that his position in the worldwide Anglican Communion is a left-over from British colonialism.

Archbishop Orombi wrote in The Times yesterday that the 'spiritual leadership of a global communion should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government'.

Dr Williams said: 'Archbishop Orombi isn't the first person who has used this language of colonial relics about the Canterbury relationship. I think it's a misunderstanding really. It would be fair only if Canterbury governed. Now, I don't govern the communion.'

He said that to accuse him of colonialism was a 'red herring'.

He criticised the obsession with sex and said it was being confused with morality. 'In the Bible, morality means justice, compassion, the defence of the needy. It means humility, realism, self-questioning, repentance and generosity. That's quite a lot to be going on with.'

He said the consecration of the openly-gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003 meant little to Africans living in far-flung parts of the continent.

'Day by day, it means very little, even if they've heard about it. The only point in which it does impact on Mr and Mrs Average in Africa is when they have unsympathetic neighbours, Christians or non-Christians, who'd say - ' Oh, you're from the gay church, aren't you?''

He conceded that Mugabe in Zimbabwe was hostile to gays.

'I think you'd find other cases of gay people being attacked - not only in Africa - but throughout the world. It's not just a local problem. But the overwhelming concern of most Africans is clean water, food, employment, transparent governance.'

He said that he and other Anglican leaders were aware of growing frustration among young Africans about unfulfilled Western promises to help them climb out of poverty.

Lambeth Report #19 Peddling the Gay lifestyle

2008-08-02T22:58:00.001-05:00

By Cherie Wetzel, reporting from Canterbury,England

One of the most intrusive aspects of this Lambeth Conference has been the presence of gay activists. Integrity, USA is the umbrella organization, but six gay/lesbian organizations have come here, run a daily newspaper called the Lambeth Witness of Gay and Lesbian Christians, rented about 1/3 of the spaces in the Marketplace and provided speakers for many self-select groups for bishops and their wives. Additionally, these folks have sponsored about half of the evening fringe events.

They use all the advertising and promotional techniques that money can buy. They are better funded than any other organization here. Gene Robinson is also here, has been for almost a month now. He is seen daily walking on the campus and interacting with bishops that will talk with him. Of course, the TEC bishops are only too happy to do so and there are a few from a couple of other places that are also always happy to see him, like Michael Ingham from Vancouver, Canada. Remarkably, as the conference continued, there is less and less press about Gene. The gay newspaper keeps him on their front page; none other.

What does it do to morale in general? It is detrimental.

With 1/3 to ½ of the press identified with gay organizations, they are unhappy when they are not called on at press conferences. Of course, back in the states, they are usually among the first to be called on and given repeated questions. It has not been so here and there have been angry outbursts.

My second trip to the Marketplace was disrupted. The first booth on the corner by the door is the Integrity booth. They are handing out rainbow ribbons and increasingly these are showing up on TEC bishops, some wives and the gay press. When you walk into the marketplace, a watcher at that booth, akin to a Carnival barker, starts shouting about your rainbow ribbon. If you don’t have one, you are admonished to come and get one. If you are leaving the marketplace and still don’t have a rainbow ribbon, you are again told to get one. Dangerous? No. It is simply annoying.

At lunch break for the bishops on Thursday, there was a gay demonstration on the lawns outside the big blue tent and their closest lunch cafeteria. Gene was there at the beginning, but when they started kissing and acting out, he left. So did the bishops, hurrying their wives away.

They let you know they are from America and share almost unparalleled freedom to be gay. New protections in England mean their activities cannot be restrained. They let you know that by most standards, they are wealthy. They are staying in hotels and rented houses, not dorms. It is also clear that countries that repress homosexual activity, especially Moslem countries, are uneducated, unsophisticated and barbaric. They assure you that homosexuality is coming to all of these countries within the next decade.

So, what is the result? I believe the homosexual activists here have had a profound effect on the conference. Bishops and their wives who are not normally exposed to gay behavior have been offended by these antics. They uniformly complain about being shouted at when they wear purple shirts by gays who want to chat. If they do stop, the insistence is that homosexuality is an inborn trait, genetically controlled. Although that may be the present view in the US, it is far from an agreed upon norm in most other countries. Bishops have expressed disdain for the gay daily newspaper, which is at the door of every building on campus. There is avoidance of the gay fringe events and self-select groups (actually, there is avoidance of most fringe events as that is the only free time of the day.)

Every bishop I have spoken with, who is not from the USA, says that departure from the norm, or new development of the faith is not the issue here. The issue is the Scriptural teaching that Christians do no indulge in the culture, but live apart from it. Homosexual orientation or proclivity does not require indulgence. We are called to chastity, higher standards in moral and ethical teachings and encouraged to live holy lives. This applies equally to men and women of any persuasion. The Biblical and Christian norm is for sex to be confined within the boundary of the marriage of a man and a woman – there perfect freedom is found.

The effort to convert the Anglican world at this Lambeth has been the usual American extravaganza. And I believe it has failed.

Cherie Wetzel reporting from Canterbury, England

Well done Bishop Beckwith!

2008-07-31T11:25:00.002-05:00

Before the Episcopal News Service began its planned press conference on July 30, Bishop Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield, became involved in dialogue with the waiting journalists- and much to their pleasure!.

Here is one thing that he said, probably to the astonishment of some loyal, modern Episcopalians who were present to support the USA cause:

“It’s not just that we’re not on the same page; We are not in the same book; We are in different libraries. I am dealing with inter-faith relations within The Episcopal Church."

Recall that this is a diocesan bishop of TEC speaking about the Bishops of the TEC (the 'we' includes them all and he is one of them--and in the room are others waiting to take part in the press briefing).. Using the picture of reading from a book, Beckwith not only uses this illustration in a clear and common form ( to make the point that 'we are not reading from the same page'); but he much strengthens the point or distinction between reading from different texts by saying that 'we are actually reading from different pages in different books.' And he crowns it all by saying that the reading of very different texts is occurring in two different locations/libraries.

In other words, there are two basic sources of authority in The Episcopal Church -- (a) the received Holy Scriptures received and interpreted as the Word of God given to the Church for the salvation of the world; and (b) the Book of Experience, the receiving of the message that God is giving to the Church from the variety of Experience known in all forms of human endeavor, personal, scientific, economic, political, social, psychological etc.. Beckwith tells them that he looks to the first and finds himself very much in a minority in TEC, for the majority look to Experience as the source of revelation, and even see the Bible as itself the record of primitive Experience from centuries ago. and thus not as authoritative as what God is revealing Now!

So it is not surprising that Beckwith sees his position in TEC and in the College of Bishops of TEC as being involved not in Christian fellowship but rather in inter-religious dialogue or inter-religious/inter-faith activities. Between the historic, received Religion of TEC (that is received from the PECUSA and the Anglican Family) and the innovatory, present Religion of TEC (based on the Baptismal Covenant as a commitment to the God known via Experience of the world around us) there is a great divide! Different answers arise when such basic questions are asked as: Who is God? Who is Jesus? and What is salvation? Different forms of morality arise when such basic questions as: What is the right relation of a man and woman in creation? and Who may be married in church?

Reflection

BUT WHY IS IT that so many bishops, clergy and laity outside the USA - e.g. many at Lambeth 08-- do not see that what is fuelling the new sexual ethics and agenda of TEC is a new Religion, a wholly revised form of Christian Worship, Doctrine, Polity, Discipline and Ethics?.

Why is it that those who espouse and propagate this new Religion are welcomed at Lambeth as if they were Bishops holding to the 'faith once delivered to the saints'?

Though this new 'Faith' may use traditional terms, symbols and ceremonial, it has in reality only the most minimal connection with the classical Anglican Faith known in the USA from the seventeenth century onwards, the Reformed Catholic Religion found in the Formularies and best writings of the divines of The Protestant Episcopal Church USA from the 1780s through to the 1960s.

July 31 2008 Trinity X The Revd Dr Peter Toon

PASTORAL FORUM --what really is it? thinking aloud

2008-07-29T10:06:00.002-05:00

Concerning the NOVEL idea and proposal of A PASTORAL FORUM -- see the description below of it as it currently stands in the receiving process by bishops at Lambeth 08 on July 29. First comes my comment:

Very obviously Anglicans do not have a Pope with authority worldwide; locally the archbishop or presiding bishop usually has very limited authority; and the so-called Instruments of Unity tend to arrive when a problem is much developed and they have no power to do anything but comment and often make worse!

So individual provinces, dioceses and bishops, do their own thing - that is, what they believe the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit of the age) tells them to do --be it to innovate in sexual relations; call this-worldly relief work 'salvation', make Jesus into a universal, inclusive symbol -- or cross oceans and diocesan boundaries to work in those provinces where modern innovation is in progress in order to restore the evangelical message of personal salvation with the holy gracious God and a morality related to it.

Will the proposed PASTORAL FORUM help? First note its odd name --- does not speak of a dynamic, authoritative small body, but a place for discussion in a non-judgmental way (note how 'pastoral' is used in the West today). The name of a critical entity surely counts and this name does not help, except to suggest that discussion and reasoning and patience etc will possibly solve problems (which is not generally true).

But take the USA as it is now in July 08! Is there any likelihood at all that the inner core of the Episcopal Church, committed zealously to a wholly revised doctrine of the nature of God, of Christ, and of salvation is going to be genuinely moved by a A PASTORAL FORUM talking about two moratoria of sexuality (which are part of the fruit of the new Episcopal Religion, not its doctrinal center and core!)? Likewise, now that five or six overseas Provinces are deeply involved in USA and Canadian anglican life, and see their role as co-workers with God to save the Anglican Way there from total apostasy and oblivion, what would a visiting discussion group, the Forum, have to offer that meets the people where they are (or where they have been driven!)?.

In North America there seems no other real practical possibility than - for the next decade-- the existence of two forms of Anglican expression in parallel : the present TEC and Anglican Church of Canada as INCLUSIVE in worship, doctrine and morals and a NEW PROVINCE which is deliberately orthodox in a traditional sense but is COMPREHENSIVE in churchmanship and in the interpretation of the basic Anglican Standards (Formularies)

--Peter Toon

Below the text as being studied at Lambeth o8 on Pastoral Forum

New Ways of Responding
We make the following suggestions for situations which might arise in different parts of the Communion:

-- the swift formation of a 'Pastoral Forum' at Communion level to engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy as they arise or divisive actions that may be taken around the Communion. Such a Forum draws upon proposals for a Council of Advice (Windsor), a Panel of Reference (Dromantine), a Pastoral Council (Dar es Salaam) and the TEC House of Bishops' Statement (Sept 2007) acknowledging a 'useful role for communion wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight'.

-- The existence of such a Forum might be included in the Covenant as a key mechanism to achieve reconciliation

-- Part of the role of a Forum might be for some of its members, having considered the theological and ecclesiological issues of any controversy or divisive action, to travel, meet and offer pastoral advice and guidelines in conflicted, confused and fragile situations. There is a precedent in the method of the Eames' Commission in the 1980s.

-- The President of such a Forum would be the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would also appoint its episcopal chair, and its members. The membership of the Forum must include members from the Instruments of Communion and be representative of the breadth of the life of the Communion as a whole. Movement forward on this proposal must bear fruit quickly.

-- We believe that the Pastoral Forum should be empowered to act in the Anglican Communion in a rapid manner to emerging threats to its life, especially through the ministry of its Chair, who should work alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury in the exercise of his ministry.

-- The Forum would be responsible for addressing those anomalies of pastoral care arising in the Communion against the recommendations of the Windsor Report. It could also offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the Communion might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria are broken.

-- We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in the Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own Province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion.

-- The proliferation of ad hoc episcopal and archiepiscopal ministries cannot be maintained within a global Communion. We recommend that the Pastoral Forum develop a scheme in which existing ad hoc jurisdictions could be held 'in trust' in preparation for their reconciliation within their proper Provinces. Such a scheme might draw on models derived from religious life (the relationship of religious orders to the wider Church), family life (the way in which the extended family can care for children in dysfunctional nuclear families) or from law (where escrow accounts can be created to hold monies in trust for their rightful owner on completion of certain undertakings. Ways of halting litigation must be explored, and perhaps the escrow concept could even be extended to have some applicability here.

THREE WRONG IDEAS!

2008-07-29T10:01:00.001-05:00

Fr. Todd Wetzel at Canterbury commenting on Tuesday July 29, 2008

There are a number of serious and deeply held misconceptions operative throughout the conference.

(1) One, stated by the Windsor Continuation Group, “the proliferation of ad hoc Episcopal and archiespiscopal ministries cannot be maintained within a global Communion.” Translation: Communion leadership is angry with Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, the Southern Cone et al., for consecrating bishops and charging them with the development of their missionary outreach in the States and Canada.

No one adds to this condemnation a simple statement of fact that these actions were taken because the Communion stood by and did nothing substantive while abusive actions against believing clergy and parishes (now whole dioceses) on the American shores continued. In the light of the Episcopal Church’s escalating abuse, they choose not to simply stand by in the face of Canterbury’s weak (no matter how well intended) response. Their intervention has put lifeboats in the turbulent waters at no small cost to themselves.

And, Christians under siege in the Episcopal Church, are heading for those lifeboats in ever increasing numbers.

I am reminded of the story of the Good Samaritan. Good upstanding representatives of the Communion passed by the one beset by thieves and robbers. They were in a hurry to carry on carrying on. Perhaps they would form a committee to investigate later. Fortunately, others in the Communion, willing to risk becoming outcast themselves, stopped by and sought to give aide.

(2) Two, the word “inclusive” has completely replaced an older and historically more familiar word “comprehensive” which, frankly, is the familiar word one used to describe a far healthier Anglicanism. The two words are not synonymous. The latter word, “comprehensive” is associated with a saying attributed to Augustine: “Unity in essentials, freedom in non-essentials and charity in all things.” This springs from a clear sense of what constituted the essentials – a clear statement of essentials in the 39 Articles and a transparent identity.

“Inclusivity,” on the other hand springs from the opposite: the lack of a clearly understood center and a fluid identity. We Americans defined the meaning of the word when, in the late ‘90’s, the Episcopal Church, fully present at the Richter trial, found that it had no “core” doctrine. It is this ethos of “inclusivity” to which the Episcopal Church is now so aggressively seeking to convert the Communion. It argues against discipline. Leadership mitigates against statements of doctrine. While that same leadership seldom hesitates to use the power of money to work its will. Curiously, that same “inclusivity” is being used to drive out the opposition.

There is an old story about an emperor and a town. Americans considering themselves proper Anglicans in their dress and demeanor parade about. Other members of the Communion fawn upon them and cheer them on. But there is a still small voice being uttered in this the Lambeth Conference: “They have no clothes!”

Take away the money and the political power and there is no longer any there there!

(3) Three, the Global Anglican South Conference, is spoken of with disdain. Attempts are afoot to redefine the “Global South” thereby excluding GAFCON’s leadership. True, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he is pained by their absence as do other bishops but it seems only to echo an earlier statement from the Episcopal House of Bishops who, when asked to repent of their actions said, “We’re sorry you’re upset.” No real regret there (let alone repentance). And, in the case of Rowan Williams his pain could have only evolved as a consequence of his own actions (or non actions).

The Global South, fearing that Lambeth would speak much and yet remain unwilling to discipline a stubbornly willful and recalcitrant Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada, fearing yet a further diminishment of the Christian Witness of the Communion, decided to stop wringing its hands and crying unfair. In short, in the face of constant jawboning, and leadership failure, the Global South, representing the rapidly growing Anglican areas of witness in Africa, Asia, the Global South and the mission efforts in America stopped reacting and seized the initiative. GAFCON affirmed Anglican orthodoxy in its “Declaration,” communicating clearly a way forward in its statement.

Even with the absence of over two hundred bishops of strongly Christian persuasion, there are still a good many orthodox and evangelical bishops here. Though by and large of more moderate persuasion than those of the Global South, they may graciously find the resolve to take leadership in this Lambeth Conference. What a wonder it would be to see something like the clarity of GAFCON’s “Jerusalem Statement” coming from Canterbury. Sadly I’m not sure if even this would be enough to hold the Communion together.

My guess would be that if anything positive comes out of this Lambeth Conference it will largely be because the Global South stopped reacting and clearly stated, “Here we stand, we can do no other!”

GAFCON PROVINCE for North America—much desired by some, and soon [?] to be granted by the GAFCON Primates?

2008-07-27T15:45:00.001-05:00

Some preliminary observations and comments from Peter Toon

Ecclesial revolution is in the making in Canada and the U.S.A. The Common Cause Partnership in North American has petitioned the Primates’ Council of the GAFCON movement for recognition as an Anglican Province in North America. If granted, this extraordinary request will lead to a rival to the two existing Anglican Provinces of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, both of which are regarded by GAFCON as deeply flawed and probably apostate.

Further, if this petition is granted, then the new North American, cross-border entity will be unique. Not only will it be a province like unto no other either in the GAFCON membership or in the full Anglican Communion of Churches and Family, but also it will present a type of Province, the like of which there has not been in the history of either the Western or Eastern Churches since Provinces were recognized in the patristic era through to the present day. In fact, to call the recognition of the body, that is the present Common Cause Partnership, a Province will be an innovation for which there is only the minimal meaningful precedent.

However, it seems that someone in the Common Cause membership is thinking at least in semi-traditional terms for the Organization has asked not merely for general recognition of the Cause as a Province, but also for the Primates’ Council to seat its own “presiding bishop,” Bishop Bob Duncan, as a fellow Primate at their table. This is a remarkable request from a young and fragile fellowship, and is perhaps of the kind which perhaps only Americans on the move would be so bold as to ask!

It is possible, that, by making this request for Bob Duncan, Common Cause is (as already indicated) making use of an ancient ecclesiastical use of “province,” a usage continued today, for example, in England with the Provinces of York and Canterbury: that is, a specific geographical district or area, where the Church is wholly present and is ultimately (via diocesan bishops) under an archbishop or a metropolitan bishop (e.g., the Archbishop of Canterbury is still called the Primate of all England!). On this (supposed) model, offered by Common Cause, North America is the “district” (and here is the unlikeness to the ancient usage) in which there are no dioceses or Episcopal areas as such; but the whole area is open to all the Bishops of the constituent parts of Common Cause to evangelize and plant churches as they deem right in this district.

Order and fellowship it is assumed will be maintained because each Bishop has two loyalties and works both at the same time –one to the sponsoring diocese, or overseas province, or network, or denomination, or organization, within Common Cause that legitimizes him and which he serves; and the other to Bob Duncan, as Presiding Bishop of Common Cause and also the Primate of the district, to whom he takes some kind of oath of loyalty. Thus the individual bishop keeps watch over the members of his jurisdiction, making sure that they work well together and in harmony with their partners in Common Cause; and, at the same time, he is careful to work with and for his Primate in order to have general stability for the whole “Province.”

While the traditional Province of multiple dioceses is united by a common canon law and constitution, the new North American one will apparently be united primarily by the bonding of the Bishops, each of whom will operate with the canon law of his own jurisdiction (be in REC, AMIA, CANA or another) amongst his people. So there will be no general provincial rules for admittance to ordination; to Baptism and Confirmation; to Marriage in church if divorced; and so on. What each of the Partners accept and do will be acceptable to the Province for that is the nature of this new Province. Its total impact is, and will be, the net result of the action of its partners working alongside, and sometimes in opposition to each other, throughout the whole “district.” That is, it will be bottom upwards and the character will emerge as the bottom rises (as it were). So there will be differences over a wide range of issues and areas such as female deacons and priests, use of liturgy, exercise of discipline over erring members, ownership of properties, medical cover for employees, pension rights and so on. But this will be a part of the real character of this province.

In short, the character will be unity without uniformity and the unity will be a generous, comprehensive one, wherein all major “streams” and “schools” of the Anglican Way will be acceptable and probably present. General unity will be maintained by loyalty to the Primate whose person will be the symbol of this wide ranging and deep form of unity for the district/province.

Will it work? Only if the participants consciously become a different kind of Anglican than they are now and learn to subdue their pronounced “opinions.” That is an Anglican who sees unity as deeply integrated with truth and never apart from it, and reckons being “in Christ” together the primary goal and experience. Some may call this “compromise” but another way of putting it is “walking with Christ” where he sets the route and the pace, and takes along whomsoever he will on his journey!

The Revd Dr Peter Toon Trinity X 2008

Is Dishonesty the Best Policy for the Church? or The Wages of Fudge

2008-07-25T10:21:00.003-05:00

© 2008 The Brynmill Press Ltd

Edgeways Miscellany no. 20

25 July 2008

All men are equal in the sight of God, people keep telling us, on what authority we don’t know—but not, anyway, in the sight of the Church of Rome or the Church of England or even the Methodist Church. Some but not all men are priests or ministers and others superintendents or bishops. One man alone is servus servorum dei. And women?

On the eve of the Lambeth Conference, and against the advice of the two archbishops, the Church of England General Synod decided to press ahead with legislation to make it possible to consecrate women bishops. On the question itself at this point we offer no opinion, nor about the wisdom of entrusting important decisions to a Mussolini-style democracy within a church claiming to be within the apostolic succession. Within the Church of England a wide variety of strongly held opinions is to be found. Whether the sex of a bishop is a theological matter is itself very contentious; also the degree of importance the question of male episcopacy has for the right ordering of the church, for there are those who hold seriously that it doesn’t matter much. Some ask what difference it can make when already some of the bishops are old women. These brief remarks are not to support any of these positions, but are about what can be learned of the Church of England from its handling of the question.

The doctrine of reception was developed by the Church of England as an aid to resolving the crisis of the 1990s over the ordination of women priests. Though in the considerable body of reports during the last twenty years the possibility was sometimes acknowledged that differences may simply be irreconcileable, the drive has been (as Dr Toon puts it in a lucid survey of Reception in the Church of England) towards “maintaining communion in the Anglican family despite differences over women’s ordination”.[1]

It is fair to say that the Eames Commission and the Rochester Report were predominantly trying to answer a how question, not a whether or a why: how full communion could be retained
within a church seriously divided on what some on both sides thought a very important matter.[2] One of the Rochester Report’s conclusions (just before its final recommendation of an eschatological perspective, because no “closure” is to be anticipated before the end of the world) was that “people of differing views will have to be enabled to live together in the highest possible degree of communion . . . .”[3]

Reception in the C of E is unlike the medieval doctrine, when Reception was the process of acceptance of decisions made by higher authority (e.g. about what constitutes the canon of holy scripture), behind which was, perhaps, the concept of the reception by the individual of the baptismal covenant. It is also unlike the more modern “reception” springing from the ecumenical movement, when one church might receive from another, over time, a practice or doctrine thought to be consonant with Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church. The contemporary C of E reception was itself an innovation. The Church recognised division between two convinced parties and so introduced the ordination of women during a period of reception as what amounted to an experiment. The will of the Holy Spirit in this matter would be revealed and discerned over an indefinite period of time, during which all parties could keep to their views and live together in full communion (though with some refusing the administration by women of the sacrament of Holy Communion). It was essential to the honesty of the procedure that the possibility be entertained of the failure of the experiment, and this was clearly stated by a number of authorities. The Rochester Report for instance speaks of “the process of discernment by which a development could be either accepted or rejected”[4] and quotes the Eames Commission, “In the continuing and dynamic process of reception, freedom and space must be available until a consensus of opinion one way or the other has been achieved.”[5]

Obvious weaknesses of the process were that no criteria were formulated for judging reception, and no timescale was fixed. The process might be of indefinite duration. It was explained to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament that “the safeguards will be there in perpetuity or for as long as they are required.”[6] The suspicion inevitably arose that, with the church bureaucracy committed to women priests and enabled to block the advancement of those opposed to female ordination, the outcome would be decided bureaucratically. One way or another, opposition to female priests was expected to fade away. But meanwhile, the Rochester Report said, “No time limit has been set for the process of the reception of the decision to ordain women priests to be concluded, because the fact that reception is a dynamic and open-ended process means that it cannot be arbitrarily halted on a given date. What is clear, however, is that while there is still substantial opposition to or hesitation about the ordination of women both within the Church of England and ecumenically the process of reception is not complete.”[7]

The word reception itself prejudices the issue by suggesting that something is being received, when it is possible that the something is in process of rejection. And if the whole process is genuinely experimental what is the position of women priests? Ordination can no more be experimental and conditional than marriage, and it would have been unthinkable to tell an ordained woman that after all she was not really a priest. As the Rev’d Rose Hudson was reported to have said, in rebuttal of the argument that female priesthood could be “repugnant to the Word of God”, “How can I, and the work I do, be repugnant to the God who has called me to a life of discipleship and service?”[8] Howbeit, the Church of England took the path of Reception, including the possibility that it might have erred by ordaining women priests, and with sufficient seriousness to be able to keep within the fold many members who did not believe that a female can be validly ordained to the priesthood. More than a decade later there has been no general recognition that Reception is complete, and both parties are still entrenched, as are those who wonder what all the fuss is about.

The Report of April 2008, GS 1685, differs from earlier reports not in explicitly discarding Reception but in its conclusion in bold type that “the moment for making choices has come.”[9] As the Synod vote went, this does mean the arbitrary halting of the process of Reception, but as a side effect, not a considered judgement.

The relevant part of the motion moved by the Bishop of Gloucester and passed by sufficient majorities without emendation reads “That this Synod: (a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate.”[10] The following clauses about arrangements for those who in conscience cannot accept the authority of female bishops are not in the spirit of Reception.

For them “special arrangements” will have to be made by a “code of practice”. No possibility is mentioned that the Church may be erring in a way that in future will have to be corrected.[11]
Women bishops are to come, and there’s an end on’t. But the process of reception of women priests has not been formally terminated, and numbers of Anglo-Catholics and a few conservative Evangelicals are still within the Church of England on the understanding that Reception continues. GS 1685 conceded that “Those who perhaps expected to see a steady contraction in the constituency of those theologically unable to accept women’s ordination will have been disappointed.”[12]

But what if the dynamic process of Reception continues, and the ordination of women priests is judged to have been rejected by the whole church? Would the newly consecrated female bishop have to resign because her priesting was invalid? This is of course unthinkable: but the inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of reception was wrongly named. The outcome was never in doubt and was not in fact experimental. The doctrine of Reception has been shown retrospectively by the Synod vote to be the doctrine of Deception.

Reception, itself an innovation, should itself have been subject to a process of reception, with clear criteria and a timetable. That it was not was itself a sign of playing politics with a concept not in the interests of the Body of Christ but in order to keep together a ramshackle earthly organisation.

It is quite possible that any present muddle is caused by feeble-mindedness. A “vast majority” of the same 2008 Synod recognised that “this was the greatest issue confronting the church”.[13] The this was not women bishops, nor, as might perhaps have been expected, the fading of Christianity from English life and loss of countless souls. It was climate change. “Feeble-minded” because only a Christianity in the last stages of feebleness could take our stewardship of the earth to be the very centre of the gospel. There is very little about global warming in the Bible. And only delusions of grandeur could explain the belief that the Church of England can make any even infinitesimally small difference to climate change.

There is nothing to prevent dishonesty getting embodied as feeble-mindedness. Not all deception is deliberate. Quite likely some of the proponents of Reception were not Machiavellian schemers but adopted Reception without much thought. They should have thought hard; not to think hard was the insincerity of the occasion. The present deplorable state of the Church of England is a righteous judgement on its possibly absent-minded flirtation with the Father of Lies.

The Prayer Book thanks God that those who have received the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ are assured thereby of being “very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people”. Can deceit be a good basis for the maintenance of communion? Whatever the rights and wrongs of female bishops, they are certainly an innovation. The change will be in the established church, not in those who secede. But if it is not possible any longer to see the Church of England as the local part of the Body of Christ, the underlying reason is not so much its innovations as its feeble-minded dishonesty.

NOTES & REFERENCES

1 Peter Toon, Reforming Forwards? Latimer Studies 56/57, 2004, p. 39
2 See Women Bishops in the Church of England?, a report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate (the Rochester Report), GS 1557, 2004 and Report of the Women Bishops Legistlative Drafting Group, GS 1685, April 2008.
3 Rochester Report 8.1.18, p. 234.
4 Rochester Report 3.6.10
5 Ibid., 3.6.11, our italics
6 GS 1685, 68, p. 14
7 Rochester Report 3.6.33
8 The Church of England Newspaper, 11 July 2008. This clearly offers experience as authority. Traditionally the Church of England has recognised the authority, in descending order, of the Bible, the other formularies, the ecumencial councils, the fathers and reason, but not experiment.
9 Para 47, p. 11
10 Why the wording was altered from the published draft, “That this Synod: (a) reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate . . . .” is unclear. The version passed is odd in that the question what the majority wishes is one of fact not resolution, and whether any ecclesiastical lawyer will be ingenious enough to argue an interpretation of the motion not as affirming anything but reporting an opinion remains to be seen. In grammar a good case could be made, though the intention of the General Synod seems to have been otherwise.
11 The detail of the debate is hard to find. If there is a Synodical equivalent of Hansard we have not discovered it. The Synod website offers audios of the sessions when the question was considered but when we tried them they were not working.
12 GS 1685 21, p. 4
13 Church of England Newspaper, ed. cit.

Status of Dr Rowan Williams as Lambeth 08 formally begins – July 19/20

2008-07-19T20:45:00.002-05:00

According to the British Constitution and the Canons of the Established Church of England, Dr Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primate and Metropolitan of all England. His Cathedral-See is the ancient See of Canterbury and his London home is Lambeth Palace. He has no ecclesiastical authority in Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

Because of this position and status, and because the Conference (not Synod or Council) of Anglican Bishops has always been held in England since 1867, the Archbishop has always been the one to invite bishops from overseas churches in fellowship with the Church of England and himself to the (usually every ten years) Conference, held initially at Lambeth Palace (thus the name of the Lambeth Conference).

For the July-August Conference of 2008 held at Canterbury, Dr Williams has generally followed the traditional set-up: he has invited the bishops; using advisory groups he has set the structure and content of the Conference, and he is presiding over it (which includes in 2008, his leading an initial Retreat for all bishops). What will be noticed at the end is the absence of any Resolutions on pressing topics (which has occurred from 1867 to 1998).

However, for the first time in modern times, a large number (between a quarter and a third of the whole of those invited) have refused and are not present. And these bishops come from provinces that are growing and which have large memberships.

Let us now ask: How do the bishops present view the status of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Conference begins?

The fact that they are present, suggests very strongly that they accept his right to invite bishops, to fix the structure and content of the Conference and to preside over it. And they may connect this to his status as the Primate of all England.

Further, as there has been much talk in the last decade about the central place of the Four Instruments of Unity in modern Anglican life (see The Virginia Report of 1998 and The Windsor Report of 2004), the bishops also no doubt see Dr Williams as “the First Instrument of Unity,” and recognize his calling of the Lambeth Conference (itself an Instrument also) as part of this vocation. Other important aspects of this position include his calling of the Primates’ Meeting and his Chairmanship of it, along with his major participation in the Anglican Consultative Council, made up of clergy and laity. Thus has a very major role outside of England.

Amongst those present are a hundred or so bishops, who previously attended Gafcon in June in Jerusalem. Included in them is the Primate of the Southern Cone of S. America. It is now becoming clear that many in this group (as the 250 or so bishops not present) have a very reduced estimate of the role of the Archbishop outside England, and are beginning to say so in clear terms (see the very clear Message of the Primates of GAFCON to the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated July 18th, 2008, using “colonial” images).

This in general terms is how they have been expressing their problems with Dr Williams in a variety of forms over the last several months:

“There are at least two problems associated with the ABC.
One is the fundamental problem that he is appointed by politicians. Once, when England was more Christian it worked well enough.
But to have a major Church leader appointed without any serious grass roots engagement by the churches is unsustainable in the increasingly secular world.
The other is Dr Williams’ abysmal failure to uphold by discipline the resolution 1.10 from 1998.
The African primates would not be using colonial talk about the role of the present Archbishop, if he had done his job in this matter.
He would have saved the unity of the Communion had he done so. He has failed to be ‘the First Instrument of Unity’.”

The Primates of Gafcon also have very serious problems with the content of the latest version of the Anglican Covenant and their opposition to it means –because of their sheer numbers and influence--that it is already dead as a means of uniting the present thirty-eight Provinces. So this is a major blow to the plans of Dr Williams and others who placed high hopes in this Proposed Covenant (suggested originally by The Windsor Report).

So while it will be in a sense business as usual at Lambeth 2008 from July 20 to August 4, with the Archbishop as President, behind the scenes and around the world, it will be known that up to one third of Anglican leaders believe that he leads a basically colonialist structure and with this they want nothing to do!

Changing evaluation of the See of Canterbury and its Occupant

2008-07-19T06:29:00.001-05:00

A comment from Peter Toon, July 19, 2008

What has been whispered at conference tables, or discussed in darkened rooms, or stated in safe e-mail traffic, or mentioned over the phone to a trusted hearer, is now being disclosed in formal ecclesial statements. And it is momentous. It is this: The respect and status being given by half the leadership of the Anglican global Family to The Archbishop of Canterbury is changing significantly.

This is to be seen in the Response of the GAFCON leaders on July 18 to the evaluation made by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the closing Statement and Declaration from the Jerusalem Pilgrimage and Conference in June.

They end their Response in this way:

“We assure the Archbishop of Canterbury of our respect as the occupier of an historic see which has been used by God to the benefit of his church and continue to pray for him to be given wisdom and discernment.

Signed

The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria
The Most Rev Justice Akrofi, Primate of West Africa
The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda
The Most Rev Valentine Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda
The Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone.”

This is significant because they speak of Canterbury and its Occupant in a way both to honor it and also to take away from it a unique position in present Anglican life globally. It has been used in the past and it may be in the future; but it becomes like York or other ancient sees, a historic see with no future assured role.

Perhaps this text is not as revolutionary as I suggest. What follows is, and gets to the heart of the matter.

The same Primates also responded to the latest Draft of the Anglican Covenant, which is intended to be a means of binding the Anglican Family of Provinces closer together. In their looking at the legal framework they noticed two problems:

“First, the document describes four instruments of Communion, which it proposes will provide solutions to disputes. It fails to recognise the disproportionate influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who invites to the Lambeth Conference, chairs the ACC and calls the Primates' Meeting. The problem of this undue influence is compounded by the lack of formal accountability on the part of the Archbishop and the prominence the document envisages for this Primate is frankly colonialist. Secondly, the prominence given to the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates raises problems in increasing further the ability of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC to exercise disproportionate influence over the Primates, thereby tending in effect to silence dissentient primatial voices.”

To summarize the first objection: in Anglican global affairs the Archbishop of Canterbury has excessive authority and power, just as did colonial governors in the days of British Empire.

And to summarize the second: Primates who have legitimate matters of global concern to raise will be prevented by these legal arrangements, which are designed to give the Archbishop of Canterbury too much influence over the functioning of the Primates in the Communion.

In short, they are no longer interested in being part of a colonial structure, which they believe cannot serve the present needs and opportunities of the Church outside Great Britain.

Conclusion:

There is NO turning back. What has been a necessary part of perceived Anglican Polity—the role of the Metropolitan of all England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the leadership of the fellowship of Anglican Churches outside the Church of England-- is not only being challenged, but it actually being rejected by half of the membership of the Communion of Churches, if not yet half of the provinces as such.

It will take time for the implications of this momentous change to settle, if they ever really settle!

The July-August 2008 Lambeth Conference will be the last and it may also qualify as the least useful of all the Conferences since 1867! This is because it has been organized to have no prophetic function but to seek internal unity only.

The Lambeth Conference of 1930: its continuing influence on the Morals and Behavior of Anglicans.

2008-07-18T16:13:00.002-05:00

“It is about as clear as any historical chain can get that the continuing implosion of The Episcopal Church is a direct consequence of the famous Lambeth Conference in 1930” [First Things, August 2008, page 40].

So what happened in 1930 of such consequence? Whatever did the assembled Bishops (mostly from the West in those days) do or say to be so important and far-reaching?

Do not be surprised! They spoke about sex and family life in which they said many helpful and even wise things (see Resolutions 9-20 of the Conference). However, in one Resolution, in which they were also trying to be helpful (and relevant!), they gave advice that was wholly innovatory in 1930 for a traditional Christian Church, be it Catholic or Protestant. Here is Resolution 15:

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

Voting: For 193; Against 67.

In the Early Church, in the Medieval Church, in the Churches of the Protestant Reformation and in the Christian tradition to the 1920s (e.g., see the Marriage Service in The BCP 1662), any form of artificial birth control in order to make the sexual act sterile was regarded as a serious sin against God’s holy law. In 1930 the Anglican Council of Bishops, for what seemed to be good pastoral reasons, suggested ways for Christian couples in certain circumstances to reject this law. By this Resolution, which went around the world like wild-fire, the Anglican Way was changed permanently. No attempt has been made in any Lambeth Conference since 1930 to reverse it, and no national or regional synod of the Anglican Communion has officially rejected it. Thus it stands as part of the modern, Anglican teaching on sexual relations within marriage.

To quote from First Things again: “By giving benediction in 1930 to married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals” (page 40).

Much ground is covered and many assumptions taken for granted, of course, in the last sentence, for, while the seed was sown in 1930, the fruit did not really begin to be seen till the 1970s and on into the twenty-first century. (For more detail on this period see my booklets from www.anglicanmarketplace.com “Episcopal Innovations, 1970-2004;” and “Same-Sex Affection, Holiness and Ordination”.)

The key moments and moves in the historical chain, which goes from the adoption of artificial birth-control, through marriage without procreation, to the pursuit of sterile sex between homosexual partners, include the following:

(a) The arrival of the “Pill” in the early 1960s and its impact on the easy availability of sterile sex for all kinds of heterosexual couples from then till now;

(b) The major change in the Episcopal Canon of Marriage in 1973, allowing for Divorce and then Remarriage in Church; and making “traditional marriage” as one of various possibilities.

(c) The new marriage service in the Episcopal 1976/79 prayer book, where procreation seen as an option within, not a normal part of, the “one flesh” union in healthy married couples.

(d) The widespread presence and acceptance of expressive individualism so that a person seeks self-worth, self fulfillment, self-justification and self-orientation. In this context, marriage is seen as created by the two concerned as a personal covenant, according to their own lights and needs. They marry into a subjective rather than an objective reality and order.

(e) The powerful homosexual lobby in the General Conventions and some diocesan synods from 1970 onwards; and the support for this major push given by those whose see morality in terms of human rights and human happiness in terms of expressive individualism as the norm for human identity.

(f) A sense of major support from the culture, its media and progressive Roman Catholics—via the continued major ridiculing of the official Roman Catholic teaching on right Sexual Relations and against artificial birth control and sterile sex, as found in Humanae Vitae.

(g) The election and consecration of the openly-active homosexual Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2004.

Other facts and details, of course, could be added to this list.

What seems to be the case is that the progressive liberals of The Episcopal Church, who favor full and equal rights for homosexual persons and couples, accept the general truth of this historical chain. They have long made their petition, “Give us what the heterosexuals enjoy in the Episcopal Church.” Also those few Anglicans who hold to the doctrine of Marriage provided in the Service in The BCP 1662 (see especially the Preface) generally find the historical chain makes full sense, as do Roman Catholics (see e.g., the essay, “The Vindication of Humanae Vitae” cited above).

However, many of those evangelical Anglicans in The Network, Gafcon and Common Cause, who describe themselves as “orthodox” or “traditional,” or both, seem to reject the historical chain presented above. Apparently, they actually believe that the historical chain does not begin with the Resolution of Lambeth 1930, and not even with the new Canon on Marriage of 1973 and the new Marriage Service of 1976/79! In fact, many of them have no quarrel with what these three teach!

Rather, they believe that The Episcopal Church got its first homosexually-active Bishop in 2004, and provided before then for the blessing of same-sex couples in varied dioceses, because during the 1980s and on into the 1990, the General Convention of the Church, followed by diocesan conventions, knowingly rejected the teaching of the Scriptures on sexuality in its traditional and straightforward meaning. That is, the supporters of same-sex arrangements worked over-hard to seek justification for their position by new and involved interpretations of Scripture, thereby twisting the meaning of the Bible to make it say the very opposite of what it actually says and had been heard to say by millions over millennia. And all this, it was alleged, was to avoid the clear sense and meaning of the Bible, which is that God has willed marriage for a man and a woman. (For details of this “new” use of the Bible to commend homosexual acts see my booklet, Same-Sex Affection.)

For many conservative Anglicans the primary question and issue has been, and remains, primarily hetero- or homo- sexuality. And for them absolutely and clearly hetero- is seen as the only Scriptural way. On this basis and from this mindset, it seems that, usually, they are happy to fall in with the Episcopal Church’s Canon Law and its 1976/79 Marriage Service. Why? Because they accept the “pastoral” need for divorce and remarriage in modern society and also they do not see any problems with “sterile” sex, if engaged lovingly and tenderly within a marriage. In real terms, one may observe they have accepted some if not all of the expressive individualism of modern society and are “realists,” not denying the full biblical doctrine of the one-flesh union (of the BCP 1662 Marriage Service), but seeing as an “ideal” for which to strive, not a commandment to follow now.

Finally, let us recall that the famous Resolution on sexuality of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, cited universally as a modern statement of Anglican orthodoxy, is, of course, the “orthodoxy” of post-1930, and it is within what we may call the modern, partial Anglican Christian doctrine of marriage.

Conclusion

While it is clearly the case that Anglican married couples are not prevented from following the full Christian doctrine of sexual relations within marriage, they do not as Anglicans belong to a visible branch or part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which can claim to receive and proclaim the teaching of the Bible, the Early Church, and the Fathers on sexual relations in holy matrimony. And this situation will not change in the immediate future!

In fact, the Anglican Way may be said to have been permanently weakened and disturbed in its morality and teaching office. This means, in brief, that the Anglican Way has constantly to fight the harder to keep at bay innovations even in basic sexual morality. What it has endured in the last decade is merely a foretaste of that which is to come!

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon July 18 2008 drpetertoon@yahoo.com www.pbsusa.org

News From Lambeth

2008-07-15T17:57:00.001-05:00

Rowan Williams responds to GAFCON

2008-06-30T12:14:00.000-05:00

The following press release from Lambeth Palace was issued at 1641 BST today.

Press release from Lambeth Palace

For immediate use

Monday 30th June 2008

Archbishop responds to GAFCON statement

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:

The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion

However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.

A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion. And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.

Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern. But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work? We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process. Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.

It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.

The language of ‘colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

© Rowan Williams

Marie Papworth
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Press Secretary
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU

020 7898 1280

STATEMENT ON THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE

2008-06-29T08:02:00.001-05:00

Praise the LORD!

It is good to sing praises to our God; for he is gracious, and a song of praise is fitting. The LORD builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcasts of Israel. (Psalm 147:1-2) Brothers and Sisters in Christ: We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, send you greetings from Jerusalem!

Introduction

The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), which was held in Jerusalem from 22-29 June 2008, is a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it. The movement is global: it has mobilised Anglicans from around the world. We are Anglican: 1148 lay and clergy participants, including 291 bishops representing millions of faithful Anglican Christians. We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it. And we believe that, in God’s providence, Anglicanism has a bright future in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and to build up the church on the foundation of biblical truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 2:20).

GAFCON is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and we hereby:

- launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans
- publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship
- Encourage GAFCON Primates’ Council.

The Global Anglican Context

The future of the Anglican Communion is but a piece of the wider scenario of opportunities and challenges for the gospel in 21st century global culture. We rejoice in the way God has opened doors for gospel mission among many peoples, but we grieve for the spiritual decline in the most economically developed nations, where the forces of militant secularism and pluralism are eating away the fabric of society and churches are compromised and enfeebled in their witness. The vacuum left by them is readily filled by other faiths and deceptive cults. To meet these challenges will require Christians to work together to understand and oppose these forces and to liberate those under their sway. It will entail the planting of new churches among unreached peoples and also committed action to restore authentic Christianity to compromised churches.

The Anglican Communion, present in six continents, is well positioned to address this challenge, but currently it is divided and distracted. The Global Anglican Future Conference emerged in response to a crisis within the Anglican Communion, a crisis involving three undeniable facts concerning world Anglicanism. The first fact is the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel. This false gospel undermines the authority of God’s Word written and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgement. Many of its proponents claim that all religions offer equal access to God and that Jesus is only a way, not the way, the truth and the life. It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behaviour as a universal human right. It claims God’s blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. In 2003 this false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship.

The second fact is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel. These declarations have resulted in a realignment whereby faithful Anglican Christians have left existing territorial parishes, dioceses and provinces in certain Western churches and become members of other dioceses and provinces, all within the Anglican Communion. These actions have also led to the appointment of new Anglican bishops set over geographic areas already occupied by other Anglican bishops. A major realignment has occurred and will continue to unfold. The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1.10). Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the ‘Instruments of Unity,’ no effective action has been taken, and the bishops of these unrepentant churches are welcomed to Lambeth 2008. To make matters worse, there has been a failure to honour promises of discipline, the authority of the Primates’ Meeting has been undermined and the Lambeth Conference has been structured so as to avoid any hard decisions. We can only come to the devastating conclusion that ‘we are a global Communion with a colonial structure’. Sadly, this crisis has torn the fabric of the Communion in such a way that it cannot simply be patched back together. At the same time, it has brought together many Anglicans across the globe into personal and pastoral relationships in a fellowship which is faithful to biblical teaching, more representative of the demographic distribution of global Anglicanism today and stronger as an instrument of effective mission, ministry and social involvement.

A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia) of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future. We are a fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses, churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world. Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.

The Jerusalem Declaration

In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit: We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.

1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.

2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.

6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.

7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.

10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.

11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.

13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

The Road Ahead

We believe the Holy Spirit has led us during this week in Jerusalem to begin a new work. There are many important decisions for the development of this fellowship which will take more time, prayer and deliberation.

Among other matters, we shall seek to expand participation in this fellowship beyond those who have come to Jerusalem, including cooperation with the Global South and the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa. We can, however, discern certain milestones on the road ahead.

Primates’ Council

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, do hereby acknowledge the participating Primates of GAFCON who have called us together, and encourage them to form the initial Council of the GAFCON movement. We look forward to the enlargement of the Council and entreat the Primates to organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans. We urge the Primates’ Council to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith. We recognise the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread, and in a few areas for which overlapping jurisdictions are beneficial for historical or cultural reasons. We thank God for the courageous actions of those Primates and provinces who have offered orthodox oversight to churches under false leadership, especially in North and South America. The actions of these Primates have been a positive response to pastoral necessities and mission opportunities. We believe that such actions will continue to be necessary and we support them in offering help around the world.

We believe this is a critical moment when the Primates’ Council will need to put in place structures to lead and support the church. In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates’ Council.

Conclusion: Message from Jerusalem

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, were summoned by the Primates’ leadership team to Jerusalem in June 2008 to deliberate on the crisis that has divided the Anglican Communion for the past decade and to seek direction for the future. We have visited holy sites, prayed together, listened to God’s Word preached and expounded, learned from various speakers and teachers, and shared our thoughts and hopes with each other.

The meeting in Jerusalem this week was called in a sense of urgency that a false gospel has so paralysed the Anglican Communion that this crisis must be addressed. The chief threat of this dispute involves the compromising of the integrity of the church’s worldwide mission. The primary reason we have come to Jerusalem and issued this declaration is to free our churches to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ.

It is our hope that this Statement on the Global Anglican Future will be received with comfort and joy by many Anglicans around the world who have been distressed about the direction of the Communion. We believe the Anglican Communion should and will be reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations.

Jerusalem

Feast of St Peter and St Paul 29 June 2008

Marriage on hold but not for ever: Back burner for Lambeth but ready to use there!

2008-06-25T21:50:00.003-05:00

Some reflections from Dr Peter Toon, on The Nativity of John the Baptist, June 24, 2008

I begin with two assertions.

First of all, there would not have been GAFCON in Jerusalem this week (June 22-28) had not The Episcopal Church in its arrogance, but legalistically following its canon law, consecrated Gene Robinson in 2003 as a bishop, and thereby precipitated an on-going crisis of identity and authority within the Anglican Family of Churches.

And probably somewhat surprising to some, but just as true:

Secondly, there would not have been either GAFCON in June 2008, or even the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003, if The Episcopal Church had not in 1973 changed its marriage canon.

In that year, this Church abandoned the basic, common Anglican position on marriage, on its books from its separation from the Church of England in the 1780s, and introduced (what sociologists of the time were calling ) “expressive individualism” into the Church’s law. In real terms, this meant that instead of each person marrying the other into an already existing order of creation and grace ordained by God and blessed by the church, each was free to marry the other into a revised, human order, there to have space to fulfill his and her own self-interests, while receiving – in the spirit of those times -- the blessing of the (revisionist) church at the same time.

In this new order sanctioned by The Episcopal Church procreation was seen as optional even for those in good health, and, further, a second or third marriage in church was deemed acceptable, if required by failure of earlier one. It was, of course, the period when the general availability of “safe” artificial birth control was widespread in the West and when “rights-monism” and the power of therapeutic accounts of life were in much in vogue, each giving strength to the new approach to marriage

In this new ethos and practical theology, there was a major opportunity for those committed to homosexual relations to develop their agenda, claims and make their witness for full acceptance in the churches, and this they did in all kinds of sustained ways. In fact they walked through the doors opened by the new “order of marriage” and even claimed that with a few changes of nouns and pronouns they could use the church marriage service for their blessing of partnerships or even for same-sex marriage.

What all this may suggest to some—as it appears to me—is that from June 2008 onwards the problem faced by the leadership of the successor of GAFCON in the Western Churches is not simply that of opposing same-sex blessings and partnerships and making general assertions about sexual relations within marriage only; but, more broadly and deeply, of making a major effort at restoring initially for the West the biblical, Christian doctrine of marriage as received in the Anglican Way – which is well set out in the Service of Holy Matrimony of the historic Book of Common Prayer in its authentic editions in use in the West (e.g. 1662 England, 1962 Canada, & 1928 PECUSA/TEC).

Here I tread on toes and apologize if it hurts! One pressing reason (and few want to recall this) for this needed, immediate and high vocation of restoration is that the minority in the U.S.A., which supports and is part of GAFCON, and which styles itself “orthodox” in the TEC and in the Anglican movements in the USA generally, is, in fact, in most of its expressions deeply itself affected by expressive individualism in its record of, and witness to, marriage. For its divorce rates and serial monogamy are national average, with a high proportion of its Ministers divorced, remarried and still working in full pastoral settings. Thus—and we mention what we do not normally mention in the U.S.A.--that the tragedy is that both the “orthodox” and “the revisionists” in the American Anglican Way, inside and outside The Episcopal Church with all its innovations and dyfsunctionality, reap the fruit of the revolutionary early innovations of the 1970s in The Episcopal Church—because (1) all have drunk deeply of the Liturgy found in the the Episcopal Prayer Book of 1979, and/or of its various additions and extensions since; (2) all have continued in strong or weak form of “expressive individualism in life style and worship; and (3) all have continued to drink deeply of rights-monism as a major for of moral guidance and self-direction.

On the Back Burner for Lambeth, July 2008

When you open the classic Book of Common Prayer in any of its authentic editions, the first service to leap from the page is not usually “The Form of the Solemnization of Matrimony” even though in terms of the amount of pages in the Book it is somewhere near the center! After all this is the Book of Common Prayer—prayer for morning and evening daily, weekly Litany and Holy Communion, followed by Baptism and Confirmation. Marriage one of the “Rites and Ceremonies,” which include the Visitation of the Sick and the Burial of the Dead, provided in the Prayer Book for important but occasional use.

In the ups and downs of the life of the Church in history, and within the providence of Almighty God, sometimes what is “an occasional office” assumes a critical and outstanding role, symbolism and doctrine. I suggest that “The Form of the Solemnization of Matrimony” in The BCP (1662) is there on the back burner of the Anglican, Lambeth stove, ready to be placed at the front, and allowed to boil.

What is it is about this short Service (only eleven pages in the pew edition) which makes it so important and deserving of full visibility and tasting at this time of crisis of Anglican identify and of teaching on sexual relations?

Negatively, it was written before and therefore avoids both the dominant expressive individualism of the post 1960s and the extreme rights-monism of the same period, not to mention the strong therapeutic presentations of human relationships much in vogue also. In other words, it presents marriage in a perspective and in a way that it is difficult to see it in the West at this time, except through this kind of mirror, as it were.

Positively, it presents—howbeit in classic prose of the seventeenth century—a fully biblical and traditional Rite and Ceremony for the joining of a man and woman in holy matrimony, according to the laws of human society and to the eternal law of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the Holy Trinity, and receiving his Blessing.

Comment on the BCP 1662 Rite of Holy Matrimony

What causes this Rite to stand out so clearly, over and above all other more recent forms of marriage in Anglican Prayer Books, is its clear doctrine in specific areas—the very areas which first the “Enlightenment” world of the eighteenth and beyond, and then in the human rights world of the twentieth century and beyond, have been attacked and often eclipsed. In fact Anglicans have usually been the ones to attack and remove them!

First of all, in the Preface to the Service, the clear relation of the holy duty and privilege of procreation (--think of it, creating new life in union with the one, unique Creator) in the context of one-flesh, holy union and growing friendship of man and woman, husband and wife, is stated as God’s will, and not negotiable!

Secondly, the whole content of the Service makes it clear that the man and woman are entering into an already existing order of creation, ordained by God himself, to which is added the rich blessing of the new covenant of grace. The Husband and Wife are not creating a new relationship and space for themselves, but entering into God’s existing relations of order and into his holy space. Thus they do not make up their own vows and promises but they make those already there—and in the U.S.A. they say “I will” and not “I do”!

Thirdly, the relation of order into which the man and woman enter in the covenant of marriage before God, the Holy Trinity, is most graciously and clearly that of “the man first in order and the woman second in order, but both equal before God as persons.” This clearly is stated in the promise made by the woman to the man; but, the context of love in which it is made in clearly state in the promise of the man to the woman first of all! Further, and this is often missed, this teaching of what is often called “male headship” is shown to be clearly scriptural and apostolic by the presentation of the duties of Man and Wife as given at the end of the Service from Ephesians 5; Colossians 3; and 1 Peter 3. These passages are part of the Service! [ As an aside, the doctrine of the Marriage service in terms of the relation of husband and wife is the doctrine one uses to interpret the Ordinal in its teaching of the duties of the Minister in the home and parish!]

As I have indicated above, this genuine Anglican doctrine of marriage from the primarily Formulary of the Anglican Way, The BCP 1662, has been eroded at these distinct points:

by dropping its God-given order and making it into primarily a human arrangement and contract which we ask God (who loves us!) to bless;

by the making of pro-creation an option, even for healthy people so that a fruit of the one-flesh union is negated;

and by the allowing of the entry into the current ethos of marriage both rights-monism and expressive individualism (opening the door not only for the advance of the homosexual cause but of much more as well).

At Lambeth 2008 will be the opportunity, provided by the providence of the Lord, for the courageous and wise Bishops from the West, along with the courageous and wise supporters of the Anglican Way, present at the Conference, to place on the front of the stove and bring to the boil this Anglican Doctrine of Marriage---and make it available for all to partake of in reading, study, meditation and desire for using to renew the doctrine and ethos of marriage on the western Church!

GAFCON BOOKLET for all the pilgrims: Way Truth & Life

2008-06-21T23:04:00.004-05:00

It is printed in Jerusalem in order to be available to the 1000 present, and was published on the 20th

It shows the following signs/weaknesses:

a. Hasty writing and production of the material
b. Written in generally generic evangelical language and thus limited by this form
c. Minimal editing by the English lady editor.

It covers these topics:

a. The familiar story of the innovations in sexuality since Lambeth 1998, written by the Archbishop of Nigeria and emphasizing the failure of the Windsor Process and the Archbishop of Canterbury to deal with the crisis in a biblically-coherent manner.
b. Thus the need for GAFCON – to recover the vision of what the Anglican Communion is all about, its true goals and essence.
c. Short statements of basic doctrine concerning God, Christ and Salvation, all in a generic evangelical form.
d. Strong emphasis upon the authority of Scripture, it right use and interpretation; its clarity for the current questions.
e. The common (and relatively recent) presentation of the Anglican way as “lower case” –evangelical, catholic and charismatic.
f. A clear recognition of the authority of the BCP 1662 and the Articles for the Anglican Way and a desire to be guided by them—but with no specifics.
g. A commitment to worship that originates in the form and doctrine of the classic BCP but expands in non-English cultures and different musical contexts to being a flower from the BCP root and open to growing in the new context (where church growth may be intense!).

It appears not to have considered the possibility of:

a. The presence in the Anglican Way of a classic high-church (Caroline divines) approach as being an important “stream” and likewise an anglo-catholic one that is not Rome-ward going.
b. The presence of those who wish to be in the Anglican Way and have deep roots in it, but find themselves not able to speak with certainty on some of the doctrines confidently asserted by generic evangelicalism.
c. Its wholesale use of generic evangelical language as not the best way to write a document for the “world.”

In SUMMARY. Nothing here that is new! It is a confirmation that GAFCON is essentially an evangelical, charismatic movement lead by spiritual giants from Africa, a movement that is a growth of Anglican evangelical missionary work, years ago, but a growth that is now on the world-stage mature and a major phenomenon to take into account. The West would do well to mark, learn and digest….we need the passion of the evangelist in the hearts of all our clergy and lay leaders! We need to think again of wining souls (people) for Jesus!

The Revd Dr Peter Toon

petertoon@msn.com
drpetertoon@yahoo.com
www.pbsusa.org
www.anglicanmarketplace.com

President,
The Prayer Book Society of the USA, Box 35220, Philadelphia PA 19128-0220

1 800 727 1928

Apparent Prayer eliminates Effectual Prayer

2008-06-16T20:46:00.001-05:00

On those “Lists” in the Bulletin which are read aloud in the Sunday “Eucharist.”

Some observations from one who has visited many churches over the last fifteen years in the forty-eight contiguous states - and in Hawaii and Alaska, and in most Canadian provinces.

In a previous short essay released on Trinity IV (“LITURGY: Contrast before and after the 1970s”), I noted the massive change to the “Anglican Divine Liturgy” (Public Worship for the Lord’s Day Morning) that occurred after the late 1960s, and then in and through the decades to the twenty-first century. From being the fixed and stable Liturgy where the individual person became by desire and grace a member of the Body, the divine entity, the divine organism, the microcosm of the one, catholic Church, historic Anglican Public Worship [Morning Prayer, Litany and The Order for Holy Communion] became the Liturgy for the ever-fuller expression of what is known as expressive individualism.

Gone was the united, fixed Prayer and content; in its place was flexibility, choice and change. Common Prayer assumed a new shape allowing varied content rather than classic shape containing unity in doctrine and content.

The entrance of this powerful, expressive individualism (which of course dominated much of American Protestant evangelical and liberal religion at that time and has done since) was felt in Anglican circles (as well as in Lutheran and Methodist circles) in both strong and weak forms. With the strong came musicians, actors, dancers, readers and their “arts,” and with the weak came celebration of birthdays and wedding anniversaries, extra “new” music, “shared ministries” in “the worship service” and so on. In a sense, what had been seen as belonging to a period after the Public Liturgy on Sunday, and also to mid- week for a variety of purposes, was now judged to be right for the unique Sunday Liturgy as well, but, importantly, it entered on Sunday as the result of expressive individualism! that is, to meet the felt needs of liberated individuals, who saw and felt the world from the inner perspective of the self.

Here, as space is limited, let us focus on one innovation that is so visible and audible in most “worship services” of churches of Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist types across the U.S.A. and Canada in 2008. It is most clearly the result of the influence of expressive individualism, a phenomenon that liturgists have embraced as one important theme of successful contemporary worship.

Prayer LISTS

Sometime during or after the 1970s the ”Prayer List,” previously found in the printed Bulletin of parishes. found its way into the content of “the [new] Holy Eucharist” as a required part of the form of the “Prayers of the People.” Here, in the middle of what were usually short prayers of petition and intercession for the church and the world, a lay-person reads through this (usually-long) List, normally of first names, of those who had been placed upon It or requested to be on it as “needing prayer.” It all ended with the minister or lay-person making a short, summary prayer. The general idea seems to have been the incorporation of these “sick people” into the gathered “community” and embrace them in love.

Question: Why does the importing of such a List in such a way into the Liturgy represent a major and serious innovation from the point of view of the Anglican Tradition (i.e., from the first Book of Common Prayer of 1549, behind this in the medieval Latin Liturgy and on backwards into the Patristic Liturgy and even into the liturgy of the synagogue)?

To see the answer one may turn to look in The Book of Common Prayer (1549-1662 & the USA 1928 and Canadian 1962 editions; but NOT the 1979 USA edition). In the Prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here on earth, the Minister prays on behalf of all: And we most humbly beseech thee of thy goodness, O Lord, to comfort and succor all them, who in this transitory life are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity…”

This is the Prayer of the local church understood as an entity, an organism, as the local body of Christ and as the household of Faith. So the intercession is all-embracing , covering all, addressed to an All-knowing, all-wise, All-powerful God and Father, before whom all are equal in Christ Jesus, whether severely or minimally ill. The one united prayer of the one people of God for the one people of God arises through Christ in the Spirit to the one God of Salvation, the God of Health for this world and the next, that is of true Health!

Outside this unique Prayer of the Sunday Liturgy on the Lord’s Day, and during the weekdays, are many opportunities for the visiting of, and praying for the sick – which should be a real ministry of ordained Ministers and commissioned lay leaders. Regrettably this was often neglected in the past, as it is also now, and for this there is little or no excuse for us before the judgment seat of Jesus the Lord.

Obviously the point being made here is a biblical, liturgical and pastoral one, and one that was wholly in place for over a thousand years in Western and Eastern Catholicism, and then magisterial Protestantism (Anglicanism and Lutheranism, for example). To have disregarded it, with so much else, in the and after the 1960s is an amazing and sad comment on contemporary, western, liturgical Christianity, and a failure to grasp the nature of Prayer in the Body of Christ.

Addendum

Perhaps an explanatory and practical comment on the modern use of the “List” here will help to make clearer the most important point that I believe I am making. Standing alone, I believe and I am often told that this common practice, even with good intentions, suffers from regular deficiencies, which are rarely put right. Here are some deficiencies that people regularly note and comment on:

People are left off the List simply through human error, ignorance and carelessness and this upsets not a few people a good deal (for the LIST has acquired emotional connections for some).
People who have died or moved away are left on often for weeks.
People who have recovered and are visibly active are often left on.
Very few people in larger congregations know more than a few of the names – especially as most appear as nick-names or first-names, or without any clue as to their whereabouts or needs.
Editors of Lists are fearful to edit even though they know it is often desperately needed, because of the built-in expressive individualism in this practice now.
When Lists are read out, few readers seem to prepare themselves either for pronunciation or for reverential demeanor in reading, and thus it sounds like any other list and can be most boring to the average listener!
In comparison to the often several minutes of names upon names, the concluding prayer at the end usually takes a few seconds usually.
Thus in the end what purports to be an intercessory Prayer is not a Prayer at all, but, rather, a list of names of persons (“individuals”) which are read out aloud and then attached to a short, quick, prayer formula!

As I have indicated, to redeem this poor pastoral, liturgical practice is not possible; but, I suggest that it may be improved somewhat by keeping a good, up-to-date, annotated LIST, printed in the Bulletin weekly, and then using it not in the “Service” but in daily Family Prayers in the parish and at the church prayer meetings, and the like, where it can be used creatively and reverently.

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon, June 16, 2008, week of Trinity IV

END

IRREVOCABLE OR IRREDEEMABLE CHANGES?

2008-06-14T14:22:00.001-05:00

Or, HOW the Holy Eucharist, the Anglican Divine Liturgy, The Order for Holy Communion, was radically changed in the 1960s & 1970s, possibly for ever: and how the public services of Morning and Evening Prayer suffered as a consequence.

Some preliminary thoughts for consideration from the Revd Dr Peter Toon, Trinity 4, 2008, with special thanks to the insights of the late F. P Harton, who wrote in the 1930s

Here I do not intend to deal in detail with relation to Liturgy of the changed structure and content, or the supposed move away from the penitential to the adoption of the celebratory, or to the principle of openness to reform and development every decade or less, or to the power of local worship committees to adapt and modify for supposed local needs. I have written on these matters on various occasions in various publications and on the web.

Rather, I want to focus on the true Liturgy for a given jurisdiction as a whole text, a whole prayer, a whole experience of and for the local Body of Christ (a microcosm of the whole Body, and as such a totally non-individual because a supra-personal event).

Further, and here I may shock the reader, I want to suggest that this classic ideal has been shattered by the entry into liturgy of all kinds of forms of what is known as expressive individualism, which is endemic in the West and very much so in the USA and very noticeably in the USA churches.

(A) The LITURGY.

Here I refer to “the Anglican Order for Holy Communion” found in the classic editions of The Book of Common Prayer (1549-1662) as The Liturgy – an ancient title, but in doing so I shall not forget Its close association with the Daily Offices & Litany.

Classically and historically the C of E and Anglican Churches have clearly and carefully distinguished between the set, authorized, written Liturgy on the one side, and then other services on the other side. Amongst the latter have been evangelistic and mission service, extempore prayer meetings; fellowship meetings; bible study meetings, times for singing and special music, and so on. Without in any way negating these, the Liturgy has been seen as distinct and different in status to these, not easily or quickly open to change and adaption according to local felt needs. Historically, Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have both accepted this (but Anglo-Catholics usually after they have added a few distinctive features to the Liturgy, which once incorporated, were seen as part of it permanently!)

At this point some explanation is necessary, I think. It has been recognized from the days of the Early Church that individual prayer, even when collective, is one thing, and the special, liturgical prayer of the Church another, and each is necessary for the edification of the whole people of God. The Liturgy as such is not concerned with the individual in the first place or as such: it is primarily the expression of the one body of Christ; so in this sense liturgical prayer is impersonal. Within it as one member of the one body he or she is required by divine command and love to sacrifice and set aside his or her individualism in order to enter fully into the fullness of the body of Christ. And, only as this is one, does the worshipper truly find out and know what worship of the Father through the Son and with the Holy Spirit really is. One is in the body worshipping God the Almighty Father in union with his Incarnate Son, and this worship that is “through Jesus Christ our Lord” is far deeper and richer than any worship of our own that we can make in our own special services and meetings. Why? Because Christ is within us as a body, and as the Head offering in the Spirit the worship to the Father!

Thus in the Liturgy is realized the unity of the Body of Christ, for, importantly, the Church of God is an entity, and its vital principle is the life of Christ, the Incarnate Son, for it is guided by Him as its head, and guided by the Holy Spirit, his Paraclete. In contrast, we need to say that the individual Christian is not an entity, but a member of this unity, a cell of the living organism which is the Church of God. Of course, each Christian has his/her own spiritual life which must be lived and matured, but which must never, we must insist, be developed apart from the life of the organism and the one body.

(B) Expressive Individualism

Attempts to assimilate the Prayer that is the Liturgy to the prayer of the individual are not new in the West; but they are always wrong and they are exceedingly common in 2008 and have become so more and more since the 1960s. The line, as noticed above, between forms of real Liturgy and extra-liturgical services has been eroding so that it hardly exists in some Anglican congregations today; and, indeed, it is assumed as not only the Anglican way but also as right to have it this way! Here we find that the individualist wants to find in public prayer the direct expression of his or her own spiritual condition and needs, and for him/here, therefore, the old Liturgy (by repute or by examination) seems to be generalized, formal and cold; hence arise the experiments to make Liturgy more human, accessible, relevant and the like. And this it now appears is an open and never ending process for there are no real, fixed points.

To put this in contemporary terms, the Liturgy has been increasingly since the late 1960s—and very much since the 1990s in USA Anglicanism and elsewhere—invaded by the Individual (that is by and through Expressive Individualism) and what is often left, after this invasion, is not the LITURGY as such, but a modern form of “worship service” in which are traces of the LITURGY present via some of the ancient, familiar fixed parts (and modern liturgists now dare to call these left-overs “common prayer”!).

Expressive Individualism involves a person feeling and acting as she/he were the center of the universe, looking for self-worth, satisfaction, fulfillment and happiness outside the self, through the expression of inner desires, convictions, orientations and wants in the outer world. So personal feeling, opinion, expression, satisfaction, relevance and the like are what is looked for in daily living. (This does not in most cases lead to excessively selfish people for much kindness is felt for others most of the time.)

When such people meet (and that means most of us!) the common way to be the church in the post-1960s world is as a “community” (not as an “entity” or “organism”) where the whole is built up of the individual persons, feeling consenting and expecting to be affirmed more or less in their expression of their unique individualism. Obviously any agenda from the Bible or elsewhere arising in these circumstances is going to reflect where the members are in their expressive individualism (and obviously they are going to be at different points of expressiveness due to their belonging to different age-groups, family backgrounds, educations, moral training and so on – thus a mixed or contested agenda as we see in The Episcopal Church today).

But back to LITURGY. I submit that it cannot be doubted that since the late 1960s the new replacement Liturgy within western Anglican Churches has absorbed all kinds of additions and lost various critical previous parts and themes. These mostly, but not always , have been in the service of expressive individualism, taken for granted, it appears, at least in weak form, by the liturgists for they belong to it.

Into the “Eucharist,” as it is usually called now, has entered the dominant idea of “celebration” usually meaning the bringing of choruses, songs, loud music, testimonies, drama, stories and the like into what is now known as the generic “worship service”, and at the same time, the dumbing down of some of the great themes and doctrines of the centuries—penitence, repentance, confession of sin as the praise of God, the fear of the Lord, the chastisement of the Lord, and great mercy of God to miserable, undeserving sinners, the absolute centrality of the Atonement of Calvary and so on.

Let us be clear: this is not solely an Anglican reality for it is seen also in the ecumenical partners such as Lutherans and Methodists, and even in some of the modern Roman Catholic masses. Yet not yet as far as I know in Orthodox Churches where the right estimate of the Divine Liturgy is wholly held with care and delight.

Conclusion

The tragedy is that for virtually all types of western Anglicanism the line between the LITURGY as (a) the Prayer of the Entity, the Organism, the Body of Christ (microcosm in the one place) and (b) evangelistic, charismatic, prayer, bible-study, social work services (services for individuals coming together with Christian intent and to serve the Lord) has been shattered. We have lost the sense of the uniqueness of Divine Liturgy, first of the Holy Communion, and second, of classic Morning and Evening Prayer as public worship with fixed texts.

It is as though the long experience and great teaching and devotion of the Reformed Catholic Tradition of the Anglican Way from the 1550s through the 1960s has been thrown to the wind because of the turn to the inner self, and to a new form of individualism, which was given such new power by the revolution that we call the 1960s.

It is most difficult now in 2008 to know where to find the Anglican Way in the West, for even where the classic services are used they are so often conducted and attended by people who live within expressive individualism and do not realize the very vast difference between the restrained individualism with strong relational content, assumed within the classic texts, and that individualism that reigns virtually supreme today!

END

Why Uganda goes to Gafcon and not Lambeth

2008-06-14T14:14:00.002-05:00

Below is a press release that the Church of Uganda has put out about GAFCON. It has been sent from the Archbishop of Uganda's office.

Press Release
For Immediate Release
13th June 2008
Contact:David Sseppuuya, dsseppuuya@yahoo.com
Amanda Onapito, aonapito@gmail.com, +256 772 561 428

Background on GAFCON – Global Anglican Future Conference
What is GAFCON?
GAFCON is the Global Anglican Future Conference (www.gafcon.org) being held in Jerusalem from 22nd – 29th June 2008. There are three purposes:

1. To provide an opportunity for fellowship as well as to continue to experience and proclaim the transforming love of Jesus Christ

2. To develop a renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians.

3. To prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centred mission is a top priority.

Who is organizing GAFCON?
GAFCON was conceived by the Anglican Archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, the Southern Cone (South America), and Sydney (Australia). Evangelical Anglican Bishops from the UK and the USA were also involved in its organization.

How many people will participate in GAFCON?
More than 1,000 people have registered for GAFCON, including more than 280 Bishops, their wives, clergy and non-ordained church leaders. One hundred and seven (107) people from Uganda will be going, including 34 Bishops.

Why is GAFCON being held in Jerusalem?
GAFCON is essentially a pilgrimage. We are going back to the roots of our faith, to the place where Jesus was born, lived, died, and was raised from the dead.

How is GAFCON different from Lambeth?
The Lambeth Conference of Bishops is held every ten years and will be held this coming July at the University of Kent in England. The Archbishop of Canterbury convenes the Lambeth Conference and invites Bishops and their spouses from all provinces of the Anglican Communion. The purpose of Lambeth is to provide Bishops with an opportunity for worship, study, and conversation about matters that affect the Anglican Communion.

GAFCON is different because it includes clergy and non-ordained leaders from the church.

GAFCON is the first of its kind and is a one-time event. It is, therefore, not an alternative to Lambeth.

Are the Bishops from the Church of Uganda going to Lambeth?
No. The Church of Uganda Bishops decided together not to go to Lambeth this year. Their decision has been supported by the governing body of the Church of Uganda, the Provincial Assembly Standing Committee. The reason the Church of Uganda is not going to Lambeth is because the purpose of Lambeth is for fellowship among Bishops, and our fellowship has been broken with the American church. We broke fellowship with them for three reasons:

1. In direct violation of the Bible and historic Christian teaching, they consecrated as a Bishop a gay man living in a same-sex relation ship

After five years of pleading with them, listening to them, and giving them many opportunities, they have not repented of that decision.

The Archbishop of Canterbury did not follow the advice given to him by his own appointed Commission to not invite to Lambeth those responsible for the confusion and disobedience in the Anglican Communion. The Bible says, 'Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?' We have not been in fellowship with the Americans who have violated the Bible since 2003, so we are not going to pretend by going to Lambeth that we are in fellowship. We are not. What they have done is a very serious thing, and what the Archbishop of Canterbury has done in inviting them is grievous and we want them to know that.

Is the Church of Uganda seceding from the Anglican Communion?
No. We are simply not going to the Lambeth Conference. We are still part of the Anglican Communion, and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion opposes what the American Church has done and the Archbishop of Canterbury's tacit support for it.

What is the Anglican Communion?
The Anglican Communion is a family of 38 independent churches that trace their heritage to the Church of England. It is the third largest Christian community in the world – the Roman Catholic Church is the largest; the Orthodox Church is the second largest; and, the Anglican Communion is the third largest. There are 77 million members in the Anglican Communion. The Church of Uganda is the second largest Province with more than 10 million members. The Church of Nigeria is the largest with more than 20 million members. The Church of England claims 26 million members because it is the State Church, and all English subjects are entitled to membership in the Church of England. But, less than 1 million people attend church on an average Sunday.

Is the Anglican Communion going to split?
The Anglican Communion has been deeply wounded. The 2003 decision of the Episcopal Church in America to consecrate as a bishop a gay man living in a same-sex relation ship caused a deep tear in the fabric of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Not only has the American Church not repented of this decision and action, but they have continued to advance non-Biblical teaching and practice. Their Bishops and many clergy have presided at the blessing of same-sex unions. Their Archbishop does not believe the Bible when Jesus says, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me.' Another American Bishop has said, 'The Church wrote the Bible, so the church can re-write the Bible.' It is wrong for them to continue to be Bishops and leaders in the Church. Yet, if their church will not discipline them, we will continue in broken fellowship with them. We cannot tolerate such theological corruption.

Is the crisis in the Anglican Communion about homosexuality?
No. The crisis is about authority. Homosexuality is only the presenting issue. All four Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion – The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lambeth Conference of Bishops, The Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council – advised against the American Church approving homosexual relationships. Yet, the American Church openly defied these resolutions and there was no disciplinary action taken against them. That is a crisis of authority in the Communion. Furthermore, the apparent lack of resolve to take action manifests a deeper crisis, namely a crisis of confidence in the authority of the Word of God as the ultimate standard of faith and moral living.

Can anything good come out of this crisis?
Yes. As Christians we are always people of hope. We believe that the Anglican Communion must base its identity on bonds of truth as well as bonds of affection. That's why we are going to GAFCON. We hope that GAFCON will reassert as normative Anglican Christianity the reality we know in Uganda – that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ can bring substantive change for good in a person's life, in his family, and in our country. We saw it when Christianity came to Uganda. We saw it when the East African Revival broke out in the 1930's and 1940's. We saw families healed, cycles of revenge broken, and oppression from demonic powers lifted. The only hope from the human condition is eternal forgiveness that comes only through Jesus Christ. That's what the Anglican Church is about, and that's why we're going to GAFCON and not Lambeth.

What is GAFCON's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
GAFCON participants are coming to Jerusalem from more than 25 countries for the purpose of pilgrimage. Many are from regions that suffer political instability and violence, and we empathize with all victims of injustice and violence in the Middle East. It is our fervent prayer that both Jews and Arabs find ways to work towards reconciliation and a political settlement to begin to bring a measure of security and justice to the peoples living in the region. We share our faith with Arab Christians, our biblical heritage with the Jewish people, and a common humanity with Muslims. We are going to the Holy Land as pilgrims and we stand against any form of unjust discrimination and violence against any people for ethnic, social or political reasons.

What is the Church of Uganda's position on the ordination of women?
The Bible is very clear that homosexual practice is sin. But, nowhere in the Bible is being a woman described as a sin. The ordination of women and the ordination of practicing homosexuals cannot be compared. They are not the same issue. People of equally strong evangelical conviction come to different conclusions about the ordination of women, but we in Uganda have understood the Bible to teach that God created men and women in His image and both can be ordained to serve God in His Church.

Chris Sugden
Anglican Mainstream
www.anglican-mainstream.net

The Counterfeit Claims of SPREAD: On The Present Purpose of the One Anglican Communion

2008-06-13T09:18:00.004-05:00

For your careful consideration in preparation for GAFCON and LAMBETH -- P.T.

The Counterfeit Claims of SPREAD: On The Present Purpose of the One Anglican Communion

By Ephraim Radner | June 10, 2008
The Society for the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine (SPREAD) recently issued an appeal that the Anglican Communion be split. In particular, the appeal, entitled “Counterfeit Communion and the Truth that Sets Us Free”, has urged that all those committed to the “Anglican Faith” which is “defined by the Church of England’s Articles of Religion, 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1662 Ordinal” , “separate from” the Archbishop of Canterbury and form a new and properly orthodox Anglican Communion. This “urgent call to action”, the appeal says, will be presented to the assembled gathering at the upcoming meeting of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) to be held in and near Jerusalem.

The SPREAD website provides no names as to its board, members, and supporters. And although the appeal mentions a number of people positively in passing – Stephen Noll, Abp. Henry Orombi, Abp. Peter Jensen, and others – it is unclear as to whether any of these persons themselves are in favor of breaking up the Anglican Communion in the way the appeal urges. The only name listed, as SPREAD’s “convener” and the presenter at GAFCON of the call to break up the Communion, is that of John Rodgers, one of the leaders of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), former Dean and recently Acting Dean of Trinity School for Ministry, in Ambridge, PA. I shall assume, for lack of any other stated names, that Rodgers is the author of the appeal and respond on that basis. In many ways I regret having to make this response at all. Bishop Rodgers has served the Church of Christ with vigor, intelligence, and faith for many years; and although I have always disagreed with central strategic choices and behaviors pursued by the AMiA in their founding, I have continued to admire their evangelistic zeal and sacrifice. However, in this case, Rodgers has gone over the line with respect to charity, truthfulness, and wisdom. It is important that Anglicans be aware of the fact that there are many Scriptural Christians like myself, committed to the witness and struggles of the world-wide Church, who strongly resist and are indeed dismayed by the spirit and content of his proposals. It is not only a very serious charge indeed to associate the name of “anti-Christ” with the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Rodgers has done in his proposal (pp.6f.); it is also false, and because the charge derives from a conclusion to incomplete, unfair, and distorted interpretations of Rowan Williams’ own testimony, it is scurrilous.

READ MORE

The Individual or the Person in relation(s) & ANGLICAN LITURGY, especially in North America

2008-06-01T18:49:00.000-05:00

Preliminary thoughts from Peter Toon (June 1, 2008)

It is a common place of modern English that a single human being is referred to as an “individual” (rather than “individual man/woman/child”), whereas animals, from pets to wild lions, are not so named. This is odd and deserves an essay sometime by someone!

While what is referred to as “individuality” and “individualism” may be traced back a long way in western history, the use of the adjective, “individual,” acting as a noun for a human being, has only been common in recent centuries. It is, for example, the way used in the Federal Law of the U.S.A. but not so obviously of all USA State Law and not the way of, say, the law of the German Federal Republic. In the latter the human being as a person in relation is still there taking precedence over “individual”.

The unchallenged use of this word “individual” today for a human being tells us a lot, but not everything, about how human beings (particularly in the West) both see themselves and are seen by others. In the fullest form in 2008 this may be explained as a form of “exclusive humanism” that accepts “no final goals beyond human flourishing, not any allegiance to anything else beyond this flourishing” (Charles Taylor). I suggest that we can see this especially in the attitude and lives of many seeming nice young persons today.

To put this in a related way, there is general agreement amongst scholars, it seems, that the type of individualism that is dominant today and assumed by the educational system, the media, the fashion industry, Hollywood and so on is “expressive individualism,” which has roots of course in the Romantic movement of yesterday and other sources. Here an individual person is seen as being true to self by expressing and doing what he or she feels is good for him or her, and does not directly harm another. Here old rules about morality, manners, deportment and the like are set aside for the “nobler” purpose of full self- expression and self realization in the name of dignity and self-worth. In terms of the older form of moral discourse, it is obviously judged as wholly self-centered; however, in response this sensibility and mindset does not count the old discourse as valid, because it was not true to the “real” feelings of human beings in their varied and individual forms of living in a complex society.

With this as background, let us, as Anglicans, think about the Bible and inherited Anglican Liturgy and see where individualism is apparent.

1. We can begin by stating that there is no description or commendation of expressive individualism in either the English Bible (KJV, RSV etc) or the English Prayer Book (The BCP 1549-1962 editions). There is selfish, pride and misery but no expressive individualism.
2. However, we need to add that there is what may be called a form of individualism in each in the sense that – always within the powerful reality of kith and kin, family relations and the like –there is the definite call to each and every person to repent, to believe, to trust and to obey the Lord Jesus as a person in his/her own right. “Take up thy cross and follow me…” But the person in decision is not seen as an individual in the modern sense: rather he is seen as a person in relation, a person who by the grace of God in free choice changes his relation to membership of the kingdom of God and ekklesia of God, without ceasing to have real human connections and relations around him. He is always a person in relation even as he acts individually in moral decision in the U-turn to the living God.
3. Turning to the new paraphrases and dynamic equivalency translations of the Bible which have appeared in many forms since the revolutionary decade of the 1960s, we do (if we have eyes to see!) meet modern expressive individualism (usually in a weak form but there) in them in the way in which human beings are situated in relation to God and to their moral lifestyle. Indeed one may say that the very use of the technique of dynamic equivalency leads necessarily to the statement of Christian standing and privilege in terms of human rights and self-worth/dignity before God and man, and away from the Biblical emphasis on responsibility, duty, fear, love, trust and so on. It does so for it seeks to put things in ways that are in vogue today in this place and time.
4. Now to the liturgies which were put together in the 1960s and 1970s and have appeared in official and semi-official forms since then. What is very clear—if one takes a bird’s eye view of their content from 1967 to 2007—is that they quickly move in North America to working with expressive individualism in restricted form as where people are to setting this position out as the ethic of the Gospel. God wills that each of us be what we are according to our individual orientation: and holiness for each of us is only possible this way. At the same time to seek to make sense of having churches, they liturgists of the new order put great emphasis on community (where individuals come together freely for celebration and self-realization), and to this end they emphasize baptism as the entry into a community of equals with a commitment to peace and justice. To be absent from the common eucharist or not to participate fully in it is regarded as a unique sin , for it is to deny practically both community and also self-realization as the way to holiness.
5. Her we have also to make the perhaps surprising point that the only real difference between those whom we think of as progressively liberal (who lead the Episcopal Church) and those who identify themselves as “orthodox,” but yet use in essence the same liturgies from the 1970s era as the progressives, is this: the former take the new innovatory principles all the way (from women’s ordination to same-sex blessings including serial monogamy and the renaming of fornication as holiness etc.), while the latter go in general with women’s ordination and serial monogamy but turn the expressive individualism away from gay sex into more traditional Christian concerns such as a “personal relationship with Jesus” which they believe is true to Scripture and which leads to charismatic style, nonconformity, church growth and outreach. That is “the orthodox” use as much as they can of the 1970s liturgies in a way that has connections with the pre-1960s tradition of Anglican liturgy and common doctrine. At the same time they are decidedly modern, that is post 1960s, in their general mindset and ethos for expressive individualism is part of their reality.

Now I would like to move on to ask how the minority in the Anglican Way, who use the Liturgies and Bible translations of the seventeenth century (KJV and BCP 1662), understand them with regard to this question of self-identity and individualism.

I think I would begin by stating my hunch that it is probably impossible for any person living in the West today to use the BCP and Bible in the way that it was used by the devout Anglican Christian in the seventeenth century. Though the Reformation had given a moral and spiritual impetus to individualism before God in terms of personal, moral decision, the strength of belonging to others in hierarchical and horizontal relations of order was strong and part of the received Christian reality of living. This is assumed by the Prayer Book in the prayers for Monarch and Country, for the good of the Commonwealth and all ranks of persons. It is assumed in the Catechism, in the Marriage Service and in the Services for Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Here we are a very long way from either the rugged individualism of the American frontier in the 18th and 19th centuries or the developing expressive individualism of later times, especially post 1960s. It is real but it is carefully restricted for general purposes.

But to continue: It would seem that there are various motives present in contemporary Anglicans who profess a preference for using a traditional liturgy (1662 England; 1928 USA; 1962 Canada). Here are some suggestions.

We know that not a few are moved by the quality of the language and by general aesthetic considerations with regard to the old texts. It would appear that they enjoy these dimensions and possibly never really make an attempt to get inside the general cultural, religious meaning and ethos through and behind the texts. So they can bring to the text a mindset—say of expressive individualism in a mild or strong form—and not sense any real discord, because their attention is to the quality of the text as pleasurable (perhaps credible does not enter in here). And their worship of God and its inner devotion are usually very personal and not themselves topics of conversation. They also love both good music and genuine silence with the liturgy and hate with passion the intrusion of a thing like “the passing of the peace.”

We also know that not a few are moved not initially by the text as such but rather by a cultural social conservatism for which the classic, solid and highly-rated text becomes an external sign of their patriotism and generally Republican commitments. (Note that Rite I in 1979 texts can also function this way.) This is not to say that they do not seek to worship God in sincerity but it is to say that the text as form- of- worship- text is being understand in a way that is not its original meaning. In fact they usually bring to it some or all of their general convictions and feelings about modern social conservatism –e.g., the mindset that is much against abortion and same-sex marriage but wholly in favor of divorce and remarriage-and these topics are very obvious at the coffee hour!.

Then we know that there are those—and they are probably the minority with the minority by far—that welcome the quality of language and aesthetics, who may or may not be social conservative as citizens, and who also truly desire to enter into the Bible’s message and the meaning of the traditional Prayer Book Services, in a real and committed way because they believe that this is a valid way truly to God the Father through Jesus Christ in truth. That is they really want to find truth and worship in truth, as well as with beauty and good order.

To begin to think and act with this mindset immediately makes a person counter-cultural in the sense that he or she has to put aside most of the dominant mindset of western society—expressive individualism, morality stated in terms of rights, and much more. One has to seek to re-imagine or re-envision oneself as a person placed by God in relations of divine order—order within the created world natural law, procreation and families etc., and also order within the kingdom of God and grace, where there is the universal family of God, the eternal household of the Father. Such a task is most difficult and may be impossible in its fullness in the conditions of modern America: and it cannot be pursued alone by a determined person, it has to be a shared vocation with others, perhaps initially in one’s “nuclear family” and in the real fellowship of a committed group or church.

Persons of committed Christian faith, who seek to walk in this way, are of course wholly aware of their context in society and church, and they have to make conscious decisions daily within the powerful context as how they are to live authentically as persons placed by God in required relations of order, in the created and the supernatural realms. And they have to pray for wisdom and discrimination so as not to lose their bearings and become cranks! Certainly the devil is after them as prize targets.

No wonder that very few Christians today in the West stand against the powerful tide of expressive individualism and the universal morality stated in rights. To do so is tough, very tough indeed.

Observation of services of worship in R C, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal, Baptist and other churches today reveals, in the main, a serious and yet unapologetic dumbing down of what these Churches taught and did a generation ago, and it also clearly reveals a general capitulation to expressive individualism on the one hand and strong push for community feeling on the other. Ministers have often become semi-professional managers of the congregation as community, and also therapists to keep people feeling welcome and a part of the whole developing community. Much of their previous liturgical leadership is shared by the laity and they are not seen as “the godly and learned pastor” anymore.

Yet such is the sense of desire for spirituality and belonging within American society in 2008, expressed mostly through expressive individualism, that people still attend churches of many types in large numbers on Sunday mornings in the U.S.A.—in great contrast to the situation in Europe or Australia or even Canada, which is so near to this ferment.

END

Web Maintenance email

2008-05-28T14:17:00.000-05:00

If you've sent any questions or notes regarding web site maintenance issues in the last few weeks, I likely did not receive them, as I neglected to change the email link to my new address: john@gravesweb.net. The links have been updated now.

Dr Toon's email address has not changed.

Thanks,

--John Graves

A THESIS to read: a personal commendation from Dr Peter Toon of an important study of Anglican Identity now available on PDF

2008-05-20T22:06:00.004-05:00

I was born in England and thus was a parishioner of the Church of England, the Established Church, from my birth. But it took me some few years to appreciate this Church as the continuing, reformed catholic Church of the nation. I had to be converted, as it were, to it from a kind of evangelical nonconformity. Since my early twenties, I have sought to be a serious Anglican, usually calling myself as high-church evangelical and an evangelical high-churchman, as a means of stating my identity in a comprehensive Church.

However, as I have found out from much experience and even pain, It is one thing to be a member of the Church of England, ordained or lay, and yet another to be the equivalent in a province overseas, especially in the U.S.A., with its totally different history and expression of religious freedom, Christian churches and denominations.

Since 1990 I have been a part of the American Episcopal or Anglican experience and thus have lived within what is generally agreed to be the fruit of the most powerful, sustained innovations in Anglicanism since the Reformation—which occurred in the 1960s-1980s in the U.S.A.. Here the innovations have not been to restore biblical holiness; but to open the church up to the secular world and conform the church to the accepted standards of peace, justice and human rights of the world. The innovations have been most obvious in Episcopal circles in terms of sexual ethics and relations between the sexes. Yet though originating primarily in the U.S.A. these innovations have caused a major crisis within the whole Anglican family and this crisis is as real now as it was five years ago!

All this personal story is merely a way of opening up the topic, described in detail in a Ph.D thesis by Charles Erlandson, entitled, “Orthodox Anglican Identity: Clear and Coherent, or Ambiguous and Messy?” (Lancaster University, UK, 2007). I want to commend this thesis—please read it by PDF on disc—to serious students of the Anglican Way, especially to those seeking to be Anglican or Episcopalian within North America and the West generally. (To order a pdf file copy of the thesis for $10, please visit www.standrewsresources.com St Andrew’s Fort Worth)

To commend this work I will make further general remarks which I hope which promote interest in the topic.

1. Though we speak of Anglicanism and the Anglican Way in the world and in specific parts thereof, such as the U.S.A., and our speech suggests a unified reality, we know that there is no unified reality as such, particularly in the U.S.A. In some parts of the world there is the official Anglican Church, as it were, and virtually no seceders from it or even competitors using the same name alongside it. But in the U.S.A., and elsewhere, Anglicanism is a cluster or a collection or a network or a group or a mixed bag of different types of Anglicans with varied loyalties and associations and with different doctrines and liturgies. Little unites them apart from the name. There is no longer only the original Protestant Episcopal Church created from the Church of England of the 13 colonies in the 1780s; alongside it and around it are many other groups, created locally or imported from abroad, also using the Anglican name! And even within the (Protestant) Episcopal Church there is a spectrum of differing forms of Anglican religion, even though the dominant is liberal progressive.
2. All kinds of efforts, intellectual and practical, have been made in recent times and are being made globally now to try to keep together in some kind of meaningful fellowship at least what is known as the Anglican Communion of Churches. That is, all these provinces which one way or another came out of the Church of England or a Church associated with this Church, and which over the last forty years or so have been bound together by a common history and bonds of affection. But this is easier said than done for what was possible in good times is often impossible in difficult times, and today is a difficult time of crisis, and thus differences loom more clearly than agreements. In fact, the search for a common identity is often not merely very difficult but elusive for groups come in and go out from such different perspectives and with mixed and varied motives. People of the best intentions see things very differently and there is much scope for misunderstanding, as is so evident in 2008.
3. It may well be—and if so this is a real tragedy— the case that there is no possible way available in the U.S.A. for there to be anything but what there is now—a messy association of different types of competitive Anglicans representing a vast spectrum of religion but all claiming to be Anglican as such. It may be that the only way to be an Anglican in the U.S.A. is to identify with one part or group within the spectrum and, realizing that it is only a part, to seek within it to fulfill one’s Christian calling in a charitable way. Now in other parts of the world, say Burma or Sarawak or Sabah, it may be different—very different—but in the U.S.A. it will be an experience of great spiritual pain for those who desire Anglican unity in truth and truth in unity in common identity! There will not be and indeed cannot be a coherent province of the Anglican Communion of Churches in the U.S.A. at this time and probably never—and what is called the Province now (Episcopal Church) is so only in name not in worship, doctrine and holiness.

BUT PLEASE DO NOT GIVE UP ON THE ANGLICAN WAY YET!

For me the form of godliness and discipline provided by the use of the classic BCP daily with the Bible represents a very high form of Christian piety, devotion and doctrine, and though I am deeply pained each new day by the lack of coherent identity in Anglicanism in the West, I have much to hang on to in a positive way from the reformed Catholic, deeply biblical heritage of the Anglican Way! Unless I can find better I stay with it and am grateful.

DO PLEASE BUY AND READ THE THESIS—better to informed and to live as an Anglican with understanding than to live avoiding facing the messy reality of the situation on the ground!

(To order a pdf file copy of the thesis for $10, please visit www.standrewsresources.com St Andrew’s Fort Worth)

--Peter Toon

EUROPE: God’s Continent, Yesterday and Tomorrow?

2008-05-17T21:04:00.001-05:00

An appreciation of Philip Jenkins, God’s Continent. Christianity, Islam and Europe’s Religious Crisis, Oxford 2007

In one of what I regard as my important short essays of recent months—“Jerusalem & Gafcon” in The Mandate, for May-June, www.pbsusa.org -- I refer to Philip Jenkins’ book, The Next Christendom, and the discussion surrounding it, as being one of the major influences in causing the new recent seceders from The Episcopal Church to turn to African Primates and Provinces for succor and a spiritual home in the Anglican Communion.

Now I wish to commend another important book by Dr Jenkins on the situation in Europe caused by (a) the powerful secularization of European Christianity and Churches in modern times; (b) the advent as immigrants of people of Muslim background, and other factors.

From this book, God’s Continent…, which I have read carefully and with profit, I have gained what I may call a complementary vision of that which American Episcopal seceders gained from the earlier book, The Next Christendom. I can now see (any maybe my European birth, education and ordination in the C of E contribute!) that there is—human speaking, and based on a long historical view of Europe in the past— a real chance of a slow but true renewal of authentic Christianity in Europe in a few years time: that is, after there is a settling down of some of the raw emotion and politics associated with the presence and demands of Muslims, as they have to face the reality of secularist Europe and so modify their religion to fit in.

Of all the Churches in Europe that has been affected by secularism in the most obvious way and so widely, since World War, is the R C Church. And it is, of course, by far and away the biggest and with the largest global connections. Any restoration of viable Christianity would, I envisage, have to include in a central and significant way, this Church, which would then, as it were, energize Lutherans, Anglicans and others to rediscover their own true heritage and vocation. Now this revival or restoration would not come out of nowhere for there are now signs in small enclaves of this beginning of renewal and vision.

However, for it to take off – see Jenkins for suggested preliminaries—it will need Europeans through their encounter with Islam socially, politically, at work, in government and so on to be led as it were to ask questions about their own cultural and religious background and heritage (e.g. why all the great cathedrals and churches around? What is the real truth about spirituality and self-meaning.? Who is God and Christ and what is salvation? And so on).

There are a lot of ifs and factors and unknowns, but to see the beginnings of a rejuvenating European Christianity with the R C Church leading and in genuine best Vatican II mode—and including a new power and vision in the See of Canterbury— in a decade is not a stupid vision: it is reasonable in the sense that it makes sense of possible factors now in play and known from other periods of history and places. And it believes that God loves the disobedient, rebellious people of Europe for Jesus sake!

If this rejuvenation were to occur, then the New Christendom of the Global South would be enriched by the new energy and insight from God’s old Continent, the spiritual home of most of the Churches of the Global South. And there would be the real possibility of a united Anglican Communion with the See of Canterbury acting in biblical apostolic fashion.

Eve of Trinity Sunday, 2008.

“Blessed, praised and adored be the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.”

drpetertoon@yahoo.com www.pbsusa.org & www.anglicanmarketplace .com

END

Uganda Archbishop to TEC PB

2008-05-15T21:27:00.001-05:00

(The Archbishop of Uganda has been at Christ Church Savannah GA, the church where John Wesley ministered.)

14th May 2008

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
The Episcopal Church USA
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY

Dear Bishop Katharine,

I received word of your letter through a colleague who had seen it on the internet. Without the internet, I may never have known that you had written such a personal, yet sadly ironic, letter to me.

Unfortunately, you appear to have been misinformed about key matters, which I hope to clear up in this letter.

1. I am not visiting a church in the Diocese of Georgia. I am visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda. Were I to visit a congregation within TEC, I would certainly observe the courtesy of contacting the local bishop. Since, however, I am visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda, I feel very free to visit them and encourage them through the Word of God.

2. The reason this congregation separated from TEC and is now part of the Church of Uganda is that the actions of TEC's General Convention and statements of duly elected TEC leaders and representatives indicate that TEC has abandoned the historic Christian faith. Furthermore, as predicted by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in October 2003, TEC's actions have, in fact, torn the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level.

3. May I remind you that the initial reason the Lambeth Commission on Communion was appointed was because of unbiblical decisions taken by TEC in defiance of repeated warnings by all of the Anglican Instruments of Communion. The Windsor Report was produced and accepted in amended form by the Primates at our meeting in Dromantine, Northern Ireland, in February 2005. It is, therefore, quite ironic for you to be quoting the Windsor Report to me. Nowhere in the Windsor Report or in subsequent statements of the Instruments of Communion is there a moral equivalence between the unbiblical actions and decisions of TEC that have torn the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level and the pastoral response on our part to provide ecclesiastical oversight to American congregations who wish to continue to uphold the faith once delivered to the saints and remain a part of the Anglican Communion. Your selective quoting of the Windsor Report is stunning in its arrogance and condescension.

4. You and your House of Bishops rejected outright the Pastoral Scheme painstakingly devised in Dar es Salaam, and to which you agreed. You have, therefore, left us no choice but to continue to respond to the cries of God's faithful people in America for episcopal oversight that upholds and promotes historic, biblical Anglicanism.

5. An important element of the Dar es Salaam agreement was the plea by the Primates that 'the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation.' This was something to which you gave verbal assent and yet you have initiated more legal actions against congregations and clergy in your short tenure as Presiding Bishop than all of your predecessors combined. I urge you to rethink, suspend litigation and follow a more Christ-like approach to settling your differences.

Finally, I appeal to you to heed the advice of Gamaliel in Acts 5.38ff, 'Leave these [churches] alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop [them]; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.'

Yours, in Christ,

The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi
ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA.

When to attend a Conference may not be commendable!

2008-05-11T06:27:00.001-05:00

Reflections on the position of TEC Bishops in Common Cause who say they will attend Lambeth 08

By A MERE ANGLICAN PRIEST

According to the wisdom of the wise, all those Bishops (of biblically-orthodox faith) who were invited to Lambeth 08 ought to have said Yes. Then as a group they could have protested with one voice the invitation given to the consecrators of Gene Robinson. Also they could have prepared to work together at Lambeth, whatever the stated agenda, for real reform and necessary change in the Communion of Churches.

In the event, because of conscientious problems about cooperating with the Archbishop of Canterbury and matters to do with the Windsor Report and Process, many orthodox bishops delayed to say Yes and so little or no common mind and protest were generated.

Fast forward to early December 07 Nairobi

Bishop Duncan and other Bishops of Common Cause went to a meeting in East Africa in December 2007, and there gave approval to what came to be called GAFCON to be held in Jerusalem in June 08, a month ahead of the Lambeth Conference (itself planned for July 08 ever since July 1998!). Although GAFCON was initially clearly stated to be NOT an alternative to Lambeth 08, the dominant participants (Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya and Sydney) in the East Africa meeting soon announced that they would not be present at Lambeth. Significantly, the reasons given for not going to Lambeth all concerned being faithful to the Lord Jesus and his Gospel and Truth. Although asked to change their minds by voices from many quarters, these Provinces stood firm ---Gafcon certainly Yes, but Lambeth certainly No. And they saw it as being obedient to the will of the Lord Jesus. They did not want to cooperate with and share the Lord’s Table with “heretics” such as those from TEC.

From December 07 most observers and commentators thought for several months that all the bishops from America from Common Cause, who attended the East Africa meeting, had surely committed themselves in general terms to the position of the lead participants. And clearly the missionary Bishops in the USA from Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda were so committed.

However, amazingly, the TEC Bishops in Common Cause (Duncan, Ackerman, Iker et al) have announced in May 08 that they will be go first to GAFCON and then to LAMBETH! They offer the general justification that unless there are “the orthodox” there at Canterbury to make the case, the truth about what is going on in North America may not be understand, let alone heard, by the Anglican Bishops present. So their presence as truth-tellers is necessary, they say (but do they realize that their senior African colleagues have already rejected totally this type of argument!).

In fact by attendance at Lambeth the TEC Bishops accept that the A. of C. is in fact, and in practice, the President of the Lambeth Conference and also the first Instrument of Unity of the Anglican Communion of Churches. More to the point they undermine the strong critique of the Windsor Report Process and the work of the Archbishop in that process, made on behalf, and in justification of, the GAFCON event!

One is left wondering whether the parting of the ways is beginning (but not yet discerned) between the TEC Bishops in Common Cause and the rest of the Bishops therein (e.g. AMIA & CANA). Further, is the bond between the African Provinces (Nigeria, Rwanda etc.) and the TEC Common Cause Bishops beginning to snap? And, further, is the Southern Cone beginning to change direction? Not going to Lambeth 08 obviously lies near to the heartbeat of the practical religion of the Nigerians, Rwandans, Ugandans, Kenyans and Sydneyites! Do the TEC Common Cause Bishops really appreciate this and have they assessed before the throne of grace what their going to Lambeth may mean?

OH, IF ONLY ALL THE BIBLICALLY ORTHODOX BISHOPS WOULD HAVE DECIDED TO GO TO LAMBETH AND TO MAKE A CONCERTED AND GODLY STAND there FOR FULL BIBLICAL ORTHODOXY IN THE ANGLICAN WAY! That they did not do so will leave a permanent scar on the face of world Anglicanism and may be a major cause to the rupture of the Anglican Way.

END Eve of Pentecost 2008

Prayer Request, Eve of Pentecost from Peter Toon

2008-05-11T06:25:00.000-05:00

If you are so moved, I ask you on this Eve of, or on the Day of Pentecost itself, that in the power of the Holy Spirit, given on this Day, you will make petition to the Father in the Name of Jesus for me/us, concerning the following:

I am a candidate for stem-cell transplant at the University hospital in Seattle, as the most efficient treatment to seek to expel the rogue protein, amyloid, from my body where it does much harm. I am doing all the preliminary tests in order to move into this program within a few weeks.

However, initial treatment and preparation is already delayed, and will be much more delayed, if the fluid that is draining from my right lung does not cease or become minimal very soon. Fifteen days out from the procedure, plurodesis, the tube is still there in my right lung! It has to come out very soon or there will be infection etc, and if it comes out with the fluid still building up inside, then another more radical procedure will be necessary and this will certainly delay or stop the treatment of the amyloidosis.

So my prayer request is simple: If you are so moved and guided,

Ask the Lord by the presence and power of the Pentecost SPIRIT to heal and put right what is causing the continuing build-up of fluid in my right lung. And to prepare my body for the demanding procedure of stem-cell transplant (using my own cells!).

Thank you!

And may you have a blessed Whitsuntide!

Thou & You in KJV (1611) and BCP (1549-1662)

2008-05-05T12:54:00.001-05:00

In 2008 in the varied forms of the Anglican Way in the U.S.A., not more than five percent consistently use in liturgy the traditional form of the second person singular for God, Thou, Thee, Thy, & Thine.

For this percentage to grow, the following “facts” need to be not only known but appreciated and understood, which is a major Christian education outreach.

In what is known as the Liturgical Movement of the second half of the twentieth century in the C. of E. and Anglicanism, the question of traditional language versus contemporary language for God is to be separated clearly from other aspects of this Movement—from e.g. (a) the call to make the Parish Communion the central Sunday service; and (b) the criticism of the Prayer Book Rite for H.C. and its “shape” by Gregory Dix et al; neither of these required a change of language for God.

The move to adopt contemporary language for God was related primarily to responding to social, cultural and religious (including movements flowing from Vatican II) factors.

The new Bible of 1611 and the BCP edition of 1604 were both authorized by King James. Both are totally consistent in their use of the traditional SECOND PERSON SINGULAR, thou/thee, for the Lord God and for Jesus Christ. Neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Ghost is ever addressed as You.

Both the KJV and the BCP are also wholly and totally consistent in the use of the traditional SECOND PERSON PLURAL, ye/you, for two or more human beings.

The KJV is always and everywhere consistent in using thou/thee of the individual person, male or female. This is because the translation is following the specific grammar of the Hebrew and Greek texts and rendering the singular one way (thou) and the plural another way (you).

The BCP (1549-1662) nearly always and everywhere uses thou/thee of the individual person (always so in Bible passages), but here and there uses “you” as the singular form—see the Catechism, the Churching of Women, and the Consecration of a Bishop. This latter use arises from the use of English in the sixteenth century where the king and courtiers along with others of high class or calling were addressed as “you.” This convention may also be observed in Shakespeare’s plays and other writings of the time.

A lot of people have been confused or misinformed since the 1960s in speaking of the language of the KJV and BCP. First of all, many have assumed that the BCP follows the same rules as the KJV with a strict division between thou and you. This is only partially true and can be misleading. Secondly, many have thought that the addressing of God as Thou is merely and only a grammatical matter—that God is singular; therefore, Thou in old English becomes You in contemporary English. This approach misses the doctrinal and devotional connections of Thou.
From the seventeenth century, the use of “you” as second person singular grew, moving out from its previous restriction as conveying respect (thus usually only to the higher classes and authorities). At the same time, the use of “thou” was gradually restricted to specific close relations between members of families, lovers, in dialects and by the Society of Friends. It has now virtually totally disappeared.

However—and this is most important—the “you” never, ever, anywhere, was used of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. “Thou” alone for God had been used since English began centuries before, and it remained in universal use, even as the use of “you” as singular for ordinary people much increased.

Thus in and after the seventeenth and until the twentieth century, God is always Thou in hymnody, devotional book, liturgy, ex tempore prayer and family devotions. The English Language of Prayer is constant in knowing the LORD God and Jesus Christ as “Thou/Thee.”
Using Thou of God (a) affirms unmistakably his singular identity as the One God; but (b) it also very importantly allows for a sense of intimacy by grace with him as the personal Lord.

The great change from Thou to You for God came in the 1960s fuelled by both ignorance and by cultural and social revolution in society and church. The vast selection of modern versions of the Bible using “you” began to appear from the 1960s. & Liturgies, hymns, songs and choruses followed. They continue to flow! Except when saying the Lord’s Prayer and singing an old hymn, we totally ignore the absolute dominance of Thou for God from the early medieval period through to the 1960s!

--Peter Toon

Ascensiontide—a precious season of 10 days before Pentecost

2008-05-01T10:50:00.000-05:00

Heaven was reconstituted by the Arrival there of the Lord Jesus

The Antiphon for Ascension Day in the medieval Church of England was addressed to the exalted Lord Jesus and (in traditional English) reads:

O Lord of hosts, the King of glory, who today didst ascend in triumph far above all heavens, do not leave us as orphans, but send upon us the promise of the Father, even the Spirit of Truth.”

It was sung before and after the Psalm of the Day. Here there is a combination of themes from Psalm 24 and John 14-16.

To create a Collect for the Sunday following Ascension Day (because the Latin one from the medieval Church made no reference to the Ascension), Archbishop Cranmer took this Antiphon and made it into a Collect, but he composed it so that it is addressed to the Father not to the exalted Son.

O God the King of glory, who hast exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph into thy kingdom in heaven; we beseech thee, leave us not comfortless; but send to us thine Holy Ghost to comfort us, and exalt us unto the same place whither our Saviour Christ is gone before, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

We recall that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday – not merely a spiritual resurrection but a truly bodily resurrection, which was very much more than bodily resuscitation. His resurrected body was an immortalized, glorified body, a human body wonderfully perfected.

For Forty Days on various occasions and places he appeared in this amazing body to his apostles and disciples until his last appearance recorded in Acts 1, which also became his marvelous Ascension into heaven.

For ten days afterwards the apostles and disciples waited for the Gift promised by the Lord Jesus – the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, coming from the Father in the Name of the Lord Jesus, bearing his gifts and virtues for his Church. So fifty days from Easter Day, at the Jewish Feast of Pentecost, and called Whit-Sunday by the western Church, the awaiting disciples received the Gift from above, the descent of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2). And from this day the message of salvation in and by Christ was proclaimed first in Jerusalem and then throughout the surrounding world.

Returning to the Ascension, by this glorious Event the resurrected Jesus was exalted by the Father to his right hand on high and crowned as the Lord of lords and King of kings—as Psalm 24 sings and prophesies.

It is most important to affirm that in this Ascension and Exaltation, the Lord Jesus did not lose or shed his human nature and body. He entered heaven—the sphere where the angels and archangels worshiped the Holy Trinity—with his full humanity, now in an immortalized and glorified form, yet real humanity still. And heaven was transformed by his arrival and session at the Father’s right hand. For now, as belonging fully and uniquely to the Second Person of the Trinity, human nature (humanity) was in heaven and the Lord Jesus, as the One Person made known in two natures (divine and human) became the One Mediator between God and man. Within the Triune Life of the Holy Trinity there was and there remains glorified human nature! An amazing thought and truth, with most holy and saving consequences for human beings, not least the possibility of the beatific vision of beholding the glory of the Father in the face of Jesus Christ.

Previously the angelic hosts and choirs alone praised and magnified the Holy Trinity with their, “Holy, Holy, Holy,” but now joined to them was the human voice of the exalted Jesus—High Priest, Son of God, Lord and Mediator. And through, in, by, and with this same Jesus there arrived in heaven also, from now onwards, a constant procession of redeemed and sanctified human beings, first the saints from the Israel of the Old Covenant and then the martyrs and saints of the Church of the New Covenant. So now in heaven the heavenly choir has both angelic and human voices and all joyfully sing in the Name of Jesus to the one glory of the one God, who is the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity.

Let us rejoice and be exceedingly glad that Heaven was eternally changed, was marvelously developed and expanded, through the Arrival and Coronation of Jesus, Messiah, Savior and Lord at his Exaltation. It is now the most holy sphere and place whose entry is “through Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Life” and in this place “there are many mansions” for the multitude of redeemed human beings.

So we ask: Why, O Why is the Festival of the Ascension so neglected today? It is the Festival without which the other Festivals cannot fulfill their meaning and purpose. For unless the Lord Jesus is exalted into heaven, his work is incomplete and thus there is no salvation, redemption, divinization and beatification for the human sinners whom he came to save.

Jesus is risen from the dead. Alleluia.
Jesus is exalted to the Father’s right hand. Alleluia.
Jesus has transformed ands remade heaven. Alleluia.
The Father sends the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, in Jesus’ Name. Alleluia.
Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead at the end of the age. Alleluia.

--Peter Toon

Meditation between hospital appointments: Posture: Standing or Kneeling

2008-04-24T07:17:00.002-05:00

By both modern liturgists and leaders of the praise-and-worship movement, we have been told that STANDING is the right and normal posture for the Sunday Eucharist of the Christian assembly. In the presence of God, they teach, the people of God normally stand—even as standing has been common in general culture in the presence of an authority figure.

There are, of course, biblical texts which describe people standing both to hear the Word of God read and also to pray. Then, in the early centuries of the Church, standing for worship was the norm and this was interpreted as being counted worthy to stand in the presence of God because of being united to the Resurrected Lord Jesus.

The same “experts” do not deny a place to KNEELING but, following general practice of the early centuries, say that it belongs particularly to times of prayer and fasting, penitence, and time of intense personal prayer (e.g., Jesus in Garden of Gethsemane). It is not to be used in Sunday worship and thus kneelers, hassocks and the like have disappeared—anyone who insists on kneeling does so on the floor!

So why was it that Anglicans were taught for four hundred years—stand when clergy enter, to sing, to hear the Gospel and recite the Creed; sit to hear the Epistle & sermon; and kneel to pray (be it thanksgiving, confession or petition)?

The answer has two sides: (a) the combination of standing, kneeling and sitting was practical and could be easily supported by biblical practices; (b) the primary posture of kneeling in the presence of God for prayer was inherited from the medieval Church.

In the West, there was a gradual but sure change from standing to kneeling as the primary posture, from the end of the patristic period into the early Middle Ages. Opinions differ as to why this move from a “community of celebration” to “a community of penitence” before God actually occurred, and as to how deep was the difference. One thing is clear is that a change occurred.

SITTING (apart from the bishop in his cathedra) is seen both by the “experts” and traditionalist Anglicans as not proper for Prayer (except for the disabled etc.). However, it is the proper posture for hearing, meditation and reflection.

Can anything be said in these days of innovations to defend the traditional Anglican posture of kneeling to pray? Is it merely and only the left-over of the medieval penitential mindset?

Here is my brief answer: Missing from the modern claim that we should follow the practice of the Church in the early centuries and make standing the primary posture is this— a failure to notice where modern western culture is, and to be realistic as to how posture is interpreted today. In other words, what standing symbolized then it may not now, and, indeed, standing may well point in a different direction today.

We agree that what dominates western culture is our absorption with rights –natural rights, civil rights and more importantly human rights. We stand in our self-worthiness and self-justification not desiring to be judged worthy by another for, we think, in and within ourselves we have that worth: we are worthy already by our innate dignity as human beings.

In this context, then kneeling is surely the primary posture we need to use for worship in order to help teach ourselves that before God we are not worthy, that we rely utterly on his mercy in Jesus Christ to be counted worthy before him. (Prostration would also work but it would be problematic in church buildings.)

“O come, let us worship and fall down and kneel before the LORD our Maker,” is the exhortation of Psalm 95.

END

drpetertoon@yahoo.com www.pbsusa.org

NO MORE TRACTS FROM TOON TO READ!

2008-04-18T08:49:00.003-05:00

For over five years I have sent out tracts, meditations, and short studies; and several thousands of them are stored here and there. Not a few made their way into magazines and parish bulletins; some were sent on to people all over the world, and yet others became the first draft of part of a booklet or book. Happily most of these thousands of 1,000-word pieces are now forgotten.

This will be my last missive into cyber space—i.e., sending out in bulk, via the web, of a short message. I am retiring from this activity, which I have enjoyed and which has kept me alert and busy! There is much going through my mind that I could write about but the time is right now to stop where I have still much to say!

Also I shall be retiring later in 2008 from editing The Mandate (which I have done for 12 years) for The Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. Further, my term as President of the PBS of the USA and Board membership run out this year. I rejoice to see a team of much younger persons taking the helm at the PBS.

As some of you know, I have had several major setbacks to my bodily health recently. Happily, I am not confined to bed and do seek to work a normal day! But I have not got the physical stamina that I had a year or six months ago.

In a few days time, I am due to spend 3 days as an outpatient at Boston University Hospital, at its specialized Amyloidosis Research and Treatment Center. Amyloid is a rogue protein produced by the human body, which seems only to exist in order to seek to injure or destroy primary bodily organs like brain, heart, kidneys and so on. Why, and how, one gets this rare disease, which affects only a minute proportion of the population, is a mystery. (But see the Service for the Visitation of the Sick in The BCP 1662 for a clue as to the why for baptized Christians!) Specialist centers dealing with it are very few in the U.S.A. and there are none in the Pacific NW, where we live. Thus the visit to Boston on the East Coast is going to where we know the experts are.

There is no known cure for this disease, but there are ways of slowing down or stopping its effects in those persons, where it is not already too advanced.

Thank you for your interest and attention. In your charity, kindly remember us in your prayers.

Goodbye and God bless you.

Peter
drpetertoon@yahoo.com Easter III, 2008

God and sickness according to The Book of Common Prayer

2008-04-16T20:29:00.002-05:00

There are occasions over the centuries in the revision and “enrichment” of an edition of The BCP that the existing service is so radically changed as virtually to qualify as a new service. Such is so with regard to the Visitation of the Sick in The BCP 1928, where the inherited 1662/1789/1892 service is radically changed. “The Office for the Visitation of the Sick has been so changed as to be hardly recognizable in its new form. As it appeared in the old Prayer Book it was so gloomy, so medieval in its theology and so utterly lacking in any understanding of the psychological approach to sick persons, that it had almost ceased to be used in the church”, wrote one distinguished commentator in 1929; and he added, “In the new Book the whole tone of the service has been revolutionized.” Let us see whether or not he is right.

Traditional doctrine, BCP 1662
Let us notice what theological principles are presupposed or articulated in the Visitation of the Sick in The BCP 1662:

God the Father is the Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos and the One who, by his providence, guides the lives of nations and individual persons.
For the sake of Jesus Christ, God the Father forgives, cleanses and adopts as his children, those who receive the Gospel and repent of their sins.
In Paul’s words, “All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:29)
In the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, “My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.”
Therefore, whatever happens to a child of God is either directly willed or directly allowed by the sovereign grace and providence of God the Father.
So a baptized believer, a child of God, catches a disease or becomes seriously ill by the express will or permission of God, who has his own gracious purpose in it.
The right response from the sick child of God is to be humble, penitent and trusting, expecting the church to pray for him and minister to him in his sickness.
Since God is THE LORD prayer for the sick cannot simply demand recovery or renewed health. Rather this prayer must be submissive, asking the Lord to minister to his sick servant and do for him what is according to the divine will, which will always including forgiveness and may include restoration to health.

Here is the address that the Minister may actually use as is, or as a guide, in speaking as a pastor to the sick person:

Dearly beloved, know this, that Almighty God is the Lord of life and death, and of all things to them pertaining, as youth, strength, health, age, weakness, and sickness. Wherefore, whatsoever your sickness is, know you certainly, that it is God’s visitation. And for what cause soever this sickness is sent unto you; whether it be to try your patience, for the example of others, and that your faith may be found in the day of the Lord laudable, glorious, and honourable, to the increase of glory and endless felicity; or else it be sent to you to correct and amend you in whatsoever doth offend the eyes of your heavenly Father; know you certainly, that if you truly repent you of your sins, and bear your sickness patiently, trusting in God’s mercy for his dear Son Jesus Christ’s sake, and render unto him thanks for his fatherly visitation, submitting yourself wholly unto his will, it shall turn to your profit, and help you forward in the right way that leadeth unto everlasting life.

Here the relation of the baptized believer with his heavenly Father by adoption and grace is a primary thought, and so sickness is placed in a large context, that of a vocation leading to everlasting life, which begins in this life and has no ending, for it is in and with the eternal God. In some cases the sickness appears to be unto physical death and so appropriate prayers are provided, along with absolution and the provision of holy communion.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this Service was increasingly seen as too much in the tradition of the medieval Service of Extreme Unction (but without the anointing oil) that it replaced: that is, it was seen as having in view more the person, who seemed to have a severe sickness unto death. rather than the person with a sickness, that was known to be possibly curable by God’s healing power acting directly or through means.

A change of mood
Thus from at least the beginning of the twentieth century, many parish priests believed that the Visitation of the Sick was not a suitable service to use. So what was called “revision and enrichment” of it began. and this is seen in the new edition of The BCP in Canada (1922) and then in all the further proposed and accepted revisions of The BCP of the century (e.g., England 1928, U.S.A. 1928 and Canada 1962).

Here, we enter a different sense of the relation of the heavenly Father to each baptized believer, his adopted child, than is present in The BCP 1662 service. Though God remains the LORD of life, grace and providence, the experience of sickness or disease as directly sent, or allowed, by God as the Father as the expression of his chastisement, or a means of discipline, is absent. Any indication that sickness and disease are anything other than unwelcome intruders into the life of the believer in an imperfect world is not suggested. It is, however, recognized as a minor theme that they do provide opportunities for growth in grace and spiritual maturity.

Further, the presence of sin in each and all of us, both sick and healthy, is assumed as a fact, and opportunity for confession by the sick person and absolution are provided. So also is the laying on of hands and the anointing with all. But there is no specific connection of personal sin with personal sickness. Prayer is offered for health of both soul and body, and both are presumed to be God’s normal provision for his children in this world, with the exception of that final sickness which is preparatory to death (and for which prayers are provided). While The BCP 1662 proceeds always in the assumption of healing “if it be thy will,” this is not obviously so in the more recent services.

Here are the first two prayers in the American service:

O Lord, look down from heaven, behold, visit, and relieve this thy servant. Look upon him with the eyes of thy mercy, give him comfort and sure confidence in thee, defend him in all danger, and keep him in perpetual peace and safety; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hear us, Almighty and most merciful God and Saviour; extend thy accustomed goodness to this thy servant who is grieved with sickness, Visit him, O Lord, with thy loving mercy, and so restore him to his former health, that he may give thanks to thee in thy holy Church; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

One of the forms of words for use in anointing with oil, or laying on of hands (or both), reads:

I anoint thee with oil [I lay my hand upon thee] In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; beseeching the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all thy pain and sickness of body being put to flight, the blessing of health may be restored unto thee. Amen.

And here from the Canadian Service two prayers:

O Lord and heavenly Father, who dost relieve those who suffer in soul and body: Stretch forth thine hand, we beseech thee, to heal thy servant N., and to ease his pain; that by thy mercy he may be restored to health of body and mind, and show forth his thankfulness in love and service to his fellow men; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Almighty God, giver of health and healing: Grant to this thy servant such a sense of thy presence that he may have perfect peace in thee. In all his sufferings may he cast his care upon thee, so that, enfolded in thy love and power, he may receive from thee health and salvation, according to thy gracious will; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Canadian form of words for the anointing with oil concludes thus: “May God of his great mercy restore unto thee health and strength to serve him, and send thee release from pain of body and mind. May he forgive thee all thy sins, preserve thee in all goodness, and bring thee to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The Scriptural basis for anointing is grounded in James 5:14-16 and Mark 6: 7, 12-13, either of which may be read at the laying on of hands with anointing.

In 1978 the Lambeth Conference passed the following Resolution on the Ministry of Healing:

The Conference praises God for the renewal of the ministry of healing within the Churches in recent times and reaffirms:

1. that the healing of the sick in his name is as much a part of the proclamation of the Kingdom as the preaching of the good news of Jesus Christ;
2. that to neglect this aspect of ministry is to diminish our part in Christ's total redemptive activity;
3. that the ministry to the sick should be an essential element in any revision of the liturgy.

Perhaps we may say that this Resolution overstates its point in order to bring attention to it!

The Gospel of forgiveness and cleansing with acceptance as a child of God surely is primary!

Brief Reflection
Obviously many advances in the understanding of the origin and nature of disease and sickness, as well as in public health and the treatment of disease, were made between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. And the practical experience of these advances, taken for granted in western life, can make the possibility of having a sense of a specific, personal intervention of God in the lives of all of his adopted children, with respect to health and sickness of the mortal body, difficult to hope for or justify.

We have moved as it were from thinking in terms of primary causation (BCP 1662) to secondary or tertiary causation at best (1928 & 1962) with respect to considering how God deals with us and allows sickness to visit his adopted children, to whom he has already given the gift of everlasting salvation and life. Further, it appears that we do not see this life, and its ups and downs, so clearly and obviously in the light of our eternal vocation in Christ, as did our foremothers and forefathers. Our sense of God as the present, active Creator and Preserver of the cosmos and of his Providence ruling our lives seems weak in comparison with that of our Christian fore-parents—after all we are all children of the Enlightenment.

Yet, though there is no little or no sense of direct divine agency with respect to the arrival in God’s children of sickness and disease in the theology of The BCP 1928 and 1962, there seems to be present in that theology a sense of direct divine agency with respect to the gift of healing and restoration to full health. The wording of prayers for healing, and the form of words for anointing, suggest a distinct, clear relation to God as the healer, who either sends healing directly or through means (medicine and the like), and both in direct answer to petition made.

The doctrine of The BCP 1662 (following the major Christian traditions, Catholic and Protestant at that time) is of personal, direct causation by God both for the gift of healing (“if it by thy will”) and for sickness as a sign of the gracious, correcting, chastising grace and mercy of an eternally loving heavenly Father. It is of course the latter, which is wholly absent from editions of The BCP of the twentieth century, as well as the many other newer forms of liturgy of the Anglican Churches of the same century, which is a real problem for many.

But does this loss/omission matter? I strongly suspect that it does, for it appears that we have encouraged in popular “charismatic” and “evangelical”, in these days of “rights monism,” the view that it is a human right for any Christian to pray to, and “demand” of God, instant healing and health—“heal now, Lord, in Jesus’ Name! Amen.” Of course, the truth of the matter is that we have no rights before God! We begin by fearing him in order that by grace we may learn to love and adore him. Bodily healing is a gift not a right, and without spiritual renewal of the mind, bodily health may not be a blessing at all.

END
visit www.pbsusa.org and www.anglicanmarketplace.com

The Queerness of Jesus' Body: modern TEC doctrine

2008-04-14T21:17:00.002-05:00

Peter Toon

Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass, lists this course for its June 2008 Term. (EDS trains future Episcopal clergy, and where I was a guest lecturer there when John Booty was aa professor there in the 1980s.)

the link is:
http://www.eds.edu/sec.asp?cat=1&page=125

T 3150 Queer Incarnation
Jordan
7:00-9:00 pm
The incarnation is sometimes presented as an arithmetic problem: What do you get when you add some divinity to a human body? But thinking about incarnation has to start much further back, in the realization that accounts of Jesus show us how little we understand about either divinity or bodies, much less about how bodies can show, act, and becomes divine. Just here and theology of the incarnation can learn from works of queer theory and the writings of queer thinkers. The body of Jesus- despised, de-sexed, and yet miraculously distributed- invites us to an exchange of bodies along the margins of human power and its certainties. We will think about the queerness of Jesus? body with the help of some traditional texts on incarnation and passion (Athanasius, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Julian) and much more recent work on gender performance, bodily transition or transformation, and the rituals of camp.

Another EDS page,

http://www.eds.edu/sec.asp?cat=7&page=14

explains that their worship 'draws on the Book of Common Prayer, but also incorporates inclusive and expansive language liturgies...'

The Episcopal Church has been talking about creating such liturgies for many years, beginning with its 1979 Prayer Book where the process began in earnest, but it got bold in doing so in the 1990s.

a book to read!

2008-04-14T21:11:00.001-05:00

From Christianity Today's Books and Culture:

"Both Read the Same Bible"
Mark Noll on the Civil War as a theological crisis.
by Robert Tracy McKenzie

The Civil War as a Theological Crisis
Mark Noll
Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006
216 pp., $29.95
Only in the last ten to fifteen years has the serious study of the Civil War's religious dimension become commonplace. Thanks to scholars such as Mitchell Snay, Steven Woodworth, James McPherson, Richard Carwardine, Eugene Genovese, and Harry Stout, we now know much more than ever before concerning the role of religious bodies and religious beliefs in the unfolding of the sectional crisis.

On the crest of this historiographical wave comes The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, the latest work from the nation's premier historian of Christian thought. In the opening pages, Mark Noll explains that his goal is not primarily to shed light on the causes or course of the war but rather "to show how and why the cultural conflict that led to such a crisis for the nation also constituted a crisis for theology." That crisis centered on two questions: what the Bible had to say about slavery, and what the conflict seemed to suggest about God's providential design for the country. Although "both read the same Bible," as Lincoln famously observed in his second inaugural, Protestants North and South discovered that "the Bible they had relied on for building up America's republican civilization was not nearly … as inherently unifying for an overwhelmingly Christian people as they once had thought." In the end it was the force of arms, not the Word of God, that would resolve the sectional dispute.

READ THE COMPLETE REVIEW

Anglicanism in North America--polity and liturgy, especially written for folks abroad

2008-04-14T21:09:00.000-05:00

Peter Toon

On the old Anglican map of the world, North America comprised two provinces , both in communion with the Church of England through the See of Canterbury, and both in the Global Anglican Communion. They were the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.

In 2008, many Anglicans (Episcopalians) around the world both in the North and in the South still use this old map. However, a growing number uses a revised map, which is not yet stable for revisions continue monthly. The revised map indicates that the Anglican Way is no longer solely represented by two national provinces, but that five other provinces of the Global Anglican Family have entered the territory, and are seeking through missions to create their own outposts in North America. Their arrival may be traced to three sources: partly by invitation from dissident locals, partly by their distaste of the innovatory, religious agendas of the two provinces, and partly out of their own missionary spirit. In mid-2008 these provinces are: Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone of South America. In their entry into North America, they treat the two resident provinces as no longer authentically Anglican in doctrine and morals, and thus they neither seek permission to enter or on entering seek to cooperate.

To understand the new map aright, we need also to be aware that before the arrival of these overseas provinces on American soil, there were other, small Anglican groups usually known as “The Continuing Anglicans.” They are found in several small jurisdictions in both Canada and the U.S.A. (e.g., the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, and in the U.S.A., the Anglican Catholic Church, The United Episcopal Church and The Anglican Province of Christ the King). Their origins were in secession from the two provinces in 1977. However, since these traditionalists had nothing to do with the Global Anglican Communion, they were not normally included on the Anglican map of that Communion. Further, they have had very little if anything to do with the seceders from The Protestant Episcopal Church in the twenty-first century, that is with the Episcopal dissidents who have been embraced by the overseas provinces in the last few years.
When one asks what kind of liturgies are used in the varied churches found on this map, then one receives an answer which points to pluralism. Let us try to indicate the main content of this pluralism.

(a) In Canada both in some parts of the Anglican Church of Canada and throughout the “Continuing churches” (from 1977 or before) the primary prayer book used is The Book of Common Prayer (1962) of the Anglican Church of Canada. This is a revision of the classic, English edition of 1662.
(b) In Canada both in most parts of the Anglican Church of Canada and throughout the churches that have recently allied with overseas provinces, the primary prayer book used is known as The Book of Alternative Services (1985).
(c) In the U.S.A. in the “Continuing churches” the primary prayer book is The Book of Common Prayer (1928) which is an edition of the American form of the Prayer Book, first issued in 1789. This is also used in a few parishes of The Protestant Episcopal Church.
(d) In the U.S.A., in The Protestant Episcopal Church the primary prayer book is known as The Book of Common Prayer (1979). This represents a new kind of prayer book with multiple alternatives and varied theologies, very different from the traditional Book of Common Prayer. The Canadian Book of Alternative Services is based upon it. Also used in this Church are newer liturgies, approved locally by diocesan bishops, which incorporate basic concerns of modern, progressively liberal liberationism and feminism.
(e) In the U.S.A., in the new Anglicanism, outside the Protestant Episcopal Church and usually in some relation to an overseas Anglican province or diocese, the primary Prayer Book is that of the Church that the seceders have left, The Book of Common Prayer (1979); and also there is some use of the prayer books of the overseas Anglican provinces working in the U.S.A. (e.g., the 1995 Prayer Book of Nigeria which is similar to the 1979 American one). A growing number are beginning to use An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) which is a contemporary language form of the classic “Book of Common Prayer” services as used in North America over the centuries, in the editions of 1662, 1928 and 1962.

So we have the situation both in Canada and the U.S.A. where most of the recent seceders continue to use without hesitation, and as part of their “orthodoxy,” the very prayer book of the Church they have left behind, and also the very prayer books that certainly gave the context and support for many of the innovations pursued by these Churches from the 1970s to the present.

There is, however, some recognition that a sound theological basis is needed by the new Anglicanism. To this end the Common Cause Partners (dissident and seceding groups in relations with overseas provinces) have drawn up such a basis which includes the classic Anglican formularies, those of the Church of England of 1662, and the very formularies written into the constitution of many provinces of the Global Anglican Communion. There is little evidence as yet that this is seriously guiding the forms of liturgy used in the new Anglicanism.

[The Prayer Book Societies in both the U.S.A. and Canada seek both to make Anglicans of all kinds aware of their strong tradition of Common Prayer, and also to encourage them to use it both for personal devotion and public worship, via one or other of the three editions of the classic Common Prayer Tradition known and used in North America—the editions of 1662, 1928 and 1962. These three belong to one distinct family of Anglican liturgy, whereas the American 1979 and the Canadian 1985 books represent a new and unstable form of modern liturgy with ecumenical roots and constantly open to revision to accommodate evolving concerns.]

Visit www.pbsusa.org www.anglicanmarketplace.com

One of the finest prayers of The BCP (1549, 1662, USA 1928)

2008-04-14T21:06:00.001-05:00

A meditation by Peter Toon on, The Collect for The Second Sunday after Easter:

Almighty God, who has given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an ensample of godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Almighty God, you who have given your only Son to be for us both a sacrifice for sin and also an example of godly living: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive this amazing sacrifice, and also attempt daily to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.]

[The Epistle is 1 Peter 2:19-25 (Christ who suffered for us.), and The Gospel is St John 10:11-16 (The good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep.) ]

This Collect was written by Archbishop Cranmer for The Book of Common Prayer 1549. It has been well said that “with two masterly touches it summarizes the whole benefit of Redemption, consisting of a sin-offering and a perfect example. “ Further, that no less happily, “it summarizes the duty of a Christian as consisting, first, in reception, and, secondly, in imitation.” We may say that the richness of thought compressed into less than sixty words is really remarkable. Further, it relates well to the content of the appointed Epistle and Gospel.

The Address:

The prayer is addressed to “Almighty God,” the first Person of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Last week he was named, “Almighty Father.”)

In the Christmas Collect, we recalled that God the Father gave his Son, Christ Jesus, to us, sinful human beings, on the occasion of his Birth; and in the Easter 1 Collect, we recalled that God the Father gave the same Jesus to die for our sins and to rise from the dead (resurrection being like a second birth, but from the tomb).

And here we recall that Jesus was given by the Father as a sacrifice for our sins and also as a perfect example of a holy life, pleasing to God. These two go together in the Collect because they do so in the Epistle: “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in his steps.” The theologians of an earlier time spoke of the active and the passive obedience of Jesus: the active being his obedience to the Law of God and will of his Father throughout his whole life right up to his death on the cross, and the passive being his suffering as the slain Son of Man as Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

This double theme may also be expressed in terms of the theme of sacrifice as set forth in the Torah, the Law of Moses. There are three kinds of sacrifice: that for sin, being a propitiation and expiation of sin; that of dedication or consecration of self, or something belonging to the self, to God; and that of acknowledgement of God’s mercy or deliverance, a thank-offering. The life of Jesus and his death were sacrificial from beginning to end comprising all three senses.

The Petition:

We pray first for the grace not only to receive but to receive with thanks what God has given, and gives us, for our eternal benefit in Christ Jesus, our Sacrifice. Reception and faith are one, for “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). To believe on, and to trust in, the Name of the Lord Jesus is the same as receiving him as the Son of God incarnate, Saviour of the world. There is a sense that we are always at the foot of the Saviour’s Cross even as we are also always with Christ the Lord in the heavenly places.

Faith is only real when it is faithful; faith works by love; and so to believe on the Lord Jesus is also of necessity to follow him, in his very footsteps. The verb used by Cranmer “daily endeavour ourselves” is a reflexive verb and not in use these days. However, its meaning is clear, to make a genuine daily effort, as assisted by the grace and Spirit of the Lord, to live a godly live in imitation of the Lord Jesus himself.

Let us both trust and obey relying on what God the Father has given us in the active and passive obedience of his incarnate Son.

April 6, 2008 2nd Sunday after Easter. www.pbsusa.org www.anglicanmarketplace.com

END

GAFCON and AKINOLA

2008-04-03T15:41:00.002-05:00

A section of the Pastoral Letter to the Anglican Church of Nigeria from its Primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, dated April 2nd

“GAFCON

The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) was introduced in our earlier pastoral letter written from the Bishops retreat in January. The planning of this conference, coming up in Jerusalem in the month of June, has reached an advanced stage. The choice of Jerusalem as the venue is to take us back in a pilgrimage to the biblical and historical roots of our faith to draw inspiration in the face of major attempts to undermine the sufficiency of Scripture by some of our brothers and sisters in the West. Knowing that this is not merely a cultural or theological struggle alone, but more importantly a spiritual battle, we urge earnest and concerted prayers that the Spirit of the Lord will show us the way ahead for our beloved Anglican Communion.
When the proposal was first discussed in January, we were staggered by the enormity of the cost, but we trusted that if God hand was in it, He would provide. Indeed the Lord has gone beyond our expectations by raising up from among us those who have felt sufficiently committed to the need to preserve the sanctity of our historic faith that they have committed huge resources to cover all the cost of the conference. May our gracious God reward these people abundantly and may they never be confounded as they continue to trust in Him and give themselves to His glad service.

The Bishops also resolved that Dioceses that had paid the required amount but have an outstanding balance in their Endowment Fund commitment should have their accounts credited with the money meant for the travel costs. This should enable us to make further progress in our desire to resource our Seminaries and other major projects in our vision. This will be a tremendous blessing to the seminaries where our clergy are trained. We have made resources available to meet their most critical needs so that our candidates for ordination and the future shepherds of our church will be well prepared for their ministry without being subjected to the usual handicaps in their training. We hope our postulants and the staff of the seminaries will reward this gesture.”

Comment on the above:

First,
The choice of Jerusalem as the venue is to take us back in a pilgrimage to the biblical and historical roots of our faith to draw inspiration in the face of major attempts to undermine the sufficiency of Scripture by some of our brothers and sisters in the West.

1 On the choice of Jerusalem
There is no suggestion at all in the extensive writings of St Paul in the NT that Christian Faith for Gentiles requires any physical relation at all to the so called “holy land” or “the city of David.” For Paul, our mother is the new Jerusalem which is above (Galatians 4:26)!

Certainly pilgrimages to the sites referred to in the OT and NT began in the fourth century and continued thereafter. However, to refer to the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem as “the biblical roots of our faith” is misleading. Our Faith is only and totally in our God and Father and in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and as an evangelically-minded pastor Peter Akinola obviously knows this. A visit to Israel may increase our appreciation of the context and background of the Bible; but faith comes from hearing and receiving the Word of God, wherever one is located to hear. 99 per cent or more of baptized believing Christians have never been to Jerusalem!
So why these notions of pilgrimage and roots of faith. The answer seems to be (from within the specific Nigerian context of Muslim presence) of the pastoral need of Christians having the dynamic equivalent of what the Muslims have in their required pilgrimage to Mecca in Arabia. If you like, taking a leaf out of the Muslim book!

2 Drawing inspiration and recovering a sense of the sufficiency of Scripture
In classic Protestant thinking, the sufficiency of Scripture relates primarily to what the books of the Bible deliver to us concerning salvation from sin and everlasting life, and the type of living in this world that necessarily goes with receiving such a gift of grace. It is a sufficiency of the biblical message of faith and related conduct by the church and each Christian and not – except by extension—sufficiency in terms of historical and geographical information.

See the Ordinal of the BCP 1662, the question of the Bishop to the man to be ordained priest which speaks eloquently of the sufficiency of Scripture.

It is true that the modern TEC seems not to believe in the sufficiency of Scripture for the purposes stated in the Ordinal; but, adds to the Bible the category of modern “Experience,” as the joint basis of faith and conduct.

A question? Is not Peter Akinola adding “experience” to the sufficiency of the Bible by the way he speaks of this “pilgrimage” to Jerusalem? If one does not go one appears to be missing out on something fundamental! Possibly Evangelicals like progressive liberals can make mistakes!

Second,
Knowing that this is not merely a cultural or theological struggle alone, but more importantly a spiritual battle, we urge earnest and concerted prayers that the Spirit of the Lord will show us the way ahead for our beloved Anglican Communion

A Spiritual Battle
Probably Peter Akinola, certainly a man of fervent prayer, has in mind the famous passage of St Paul in Ephesians 6, where he speaks in detail about the whole armor of God and clearly explains that we wrestle not against merely earthly forces, but rather against evil spiritual forces, which seek to do to us eternal harm. There is little doubt from an evangelical perspective that the whole modern agenda about same-sex relations and its claims to scriptural support arise from Satanic influence upon contemporary church thinking; thus he is absolutely right to call for sustained and fervent prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord Jesus.
And it is prayer for the Anglican Family that it may walk forward in the right way in the right path, a path where it is not invaded and possessed by devilish doctrines, innovations, practices and ceremonies.

From what the Archbishop and his spokesmen have said publicly over the last year, he already believes (as led by the Holy Spirit) that the future for the Anglican Family lies in being much more committed to the classic, biblical faith and evangelical mission, with deep social involvement with the poor and needy. It will also most probably include much less, or virtually, no leadership from the provinces of the North (West) which are, he knows, so influenced by secularization and have thus lost their moral right to lead the Family, as they have done hitherto.

The Lord shall provide
When the proposal was first discussed in January, we were staggered by the enormity of the cost, but we trusted that if God hand was in it, He would provide. Indeed the Lord has gone beyond our expectations by raising up from among us those who have felt sufficiently committed to the need to preserve the sanctity of our historic faith that they have committed huge resources to cover all the cost of the conference. May our gracious God reward these people abundantly and may they never be confounded as they continue to trust in Him and give themselves to His glad service.

The cost of this conference and pilgrimage is very expensive indeed! One week costs more than what the average Nigerian earns in a whole year! Then there is the high air cost in high season! But there is wealth in Nigeria with its oil and other natural resources and the Lord has provided by his own sovereign means the necessary costs for the bishops and their wives, plus others to go –and maybe enough to help the much poorer Ugandans and Kenyans and Rwandans.

In the sovereign providence and guidance of God, and under his abundant mercy may the Conference, whatever be its human weaknesses, be a real means of bringing needed reform and renewal to the Anglican Way worldwide!

drpetertoon@yahoo.com April 3 2008

end

Pastoral Letter from the Church of Nigeria Standing Committee

2008-04-03T15:32:00.003-05:00

Posted On : April 2, 2008 5:01 PM Posted By : Admin ACO
Related Categories: Nigeria

ACNS: 4385

The Most Revd Peter J. Akinola

My Dear People of God,

Alleluia, Christ is risen. He is risen indeed! Alleluia. May the power that raised Christ from the grave continue to empower and inspire our witness for Him as we daily identify with His death and resurrection in our lives.

The Bishops and their wives, Clergy and Laity, representing all our dioceses, with the Mothers Union and Women Guild delegates came together for the Standing Committee meeting of our Church which was hosted by the Diocese of Nnewi. The Bishop, Rt. Revd Godwin Okpala and his dear wife, led the clergy and people of the diocese to give a warm welcome to us all. We are grateful for their generosity demonstrated in so many ways, and pray for God continual blessing upon the Diocese.

Our theme for the meeting was: Being in the World but not of the World, taken from our Lord high priestly prayer in John 17 (focusing on verses 14-19). The sermons and Bible Studies were drawn from the passage with penetrating insights and heart-searching applications.

We came under the conviction that our identity has been compromised in that our witness for Christ has suffered so much embarrassment and indictment from the watching world. We acknowledged that if our Lord should be physically present in the in the world to see the Church today, He would be shocked and utterly disappointed by the extent to which His Church has lost its identity. Hardly anyone in the Church is free from this serious spiritual sickness.

Leadership in the Church has often reflected the leadership style of the gentile rulers who lord it over their subjects rather than the standard of servant leadership commended and modelled by our Lord Himself. We have become so obsessed with an endless multiplicity of titles and positions without a corresponding passion for Kingdom values to advance the course of Christ. We reminded ourselves afresh that we are called to exemplify godliness in every sphere of life and teach others in society to do what is right before God. We must extol the dignity of honest work and legal enterprise as the means to acquire wealth in a way that honours God. We must beware of celebrating those who have acquired wealth through unwholesome means or those who have stolen positions through illegal processes. If we fail to condemn these serious issues we will lose credibility before those who should take our leadership seriously.

The Diaconate Ministry

At our General Synod in Ibadan in September 2002, we opened the door to those who sense a call to the diaconate ministry in order to fulfil that important caring ministry in our parish life. We are still waiting for the trailblazers in this venture. Much time has been devoted to further discussion with a view to clarifying the dimensions and potentials of this ministry. It is a biblical ministry that addresses a key point in our vision statement: ..a Church that epitomizes the genuine love of Christ We agreed that this is a vital ministry that must be implemented as soon as possible.

GAFCON

The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) was introduced in our earlier pastoral letter written from the Bishops retreat in January. The planning of this conference, coming up in Jerusalem in the month of June, has reached an advanced stage. The choice of Jerusalem as the venue is to take us back in a pilgrimage to the biblical and historical roots of our faith to draw inspiration in the face of major attempts to undermine the sufficiency of Scripture by some of our brother and sisters in the West. Knowing that this is not merely a cultural or theological struggle alone, but more importantly a spiritual battle, we urge earnest and concerted prayers that the Spirit of the Lord will show us the way ahead for our beloved Anglican Communion.

When the proposal was first discussed in January, we were staggered by the enormity of the cost, but we trusted that if God hand was in it, He would provide. Indeed the Lord has gone beyond our expectations by raising up from among us those who have felt sufficiently committed to the need to preserve the sanctity of our historic faith that they have committed huge resources to cover all the cost of the conference. May our gracious God reward these people abundantly and may they never be confounded as they continue to trust in Him and give themselves to His glad service.

The Bishops also resolved that Dioceses that had paid the required amount but have an outstanding balance in their Endowment Fund commitment should have their accounts credited with the money meant for the travel costs. This should enable us to make further progress in our desire to resource our Seminaries and other major projects in our vision. This will be a tremendous blessing to the seminaries where our clergy are trained. We have made resources available to meet their most critical needs so that our candidates for ordination and the future shepherds of our church will be well prepared for their ministry without being subjected to the usual handicaps in their training. We hope our postulants and the staff of the seminaries will reward this gesture.

Polygamy in Our Church

As those who are in the forefront of the prophetic call for a return to biblical truth, we cannot close our eyes to the increasingly blatant disregard of the teaching of the Bible on family life. These aberrations will destroy our witness if not firmly addressed. We cannot claim to be a bible believing church and yet be selective in our obedience. We must all come under the authority of the whole Bible, whoever is involved. Indeed, any attempt to trivialize the clear teaching of the Bible will make a mockery of whatever else we stand for. The integrity of our faith is far more important than the reputation of those who turn their back on the word of God. Sadly sometimes, even our leadership has looked the other way on this matter.

Our time together in Nnewi has been a great blessing. We have seen God hand at work and to keep pace with what God is doing among us we have created eighteen new missionary dioceses and prayerfully elected bishops to serve them. It is a privilege to be members of the Church Nigeria at this time. All that we have heard and seen has encouraged us, we know that the Spirit of God is being poured out on us all.

May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Every Blessing,

Signed

The Most Revd Peter J. Akinola
Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria.

___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is distributed to more than 8,000 journalists and other readers around the world.

For subscription INFORMATION please go to:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnslist.cfm

ONE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: Three Editions in North America

2008-04-02T21:26:00.002-05:00

To speak of The Book of Common Prayer in The Episcopal Church [TEC], and in much of the new Anglicanism in the U.S.A. since 2000 (AMIA, CANA etc.), is to refer to that new and experimental prayer book that was authorized by the General Conventions of 1976 and 1979 and which therefore carries the date of 1979.

Before 1979, the same Episcopal Church (then known as The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. [PECUSA]) called a rather different prayer book by the title, The Book of Common Prayer. This was dated 1928 because it was finally authorized by the General Convention of 1928. However, this prayer book was not a new prayer book; but a gentle revision of The Book of Common Prayer that had been the official prayer book of PECUSA since 1892. And to complete the story, the 1892 edition of The BCP was itself a gentle revision of the first edition of the American form of The BCP, dated 1789. So the editions of 1789, 1892 and 1928 are three of a kind, while the 1979 belongs to a new genre.

The differences between 1928 (together with 1892 and 1789) and 1979 are very obvious when the two are compared (see Appendix 1); and, further, the similarities of 1979 to other experimental prayer books in terms of structure and content and produced within the Anglican Family at this period are also obvious. However, the new prayer books in Canada, England, Australia and South Africa were deliberately not called The BCP but by another title to distinguish them from the traditional Book of Common Prayer.

If we cross the northern border of the U.S.A. and enter Canada, and there listen in to Anglican conversation, we learn the following. That “The Prayer Book” refers to that which is called “The Book of Common Prayer” and that which is called “BAS” is a book of services existing as an alternative to The BCP. Strangely “The Book of Alternative Services” of 1985 in Canada is very similar to “The Book of Common Prayer” of 1979 in the U.S.A. and both are very different from the official “Book of Common Prayer” of the Church of Canada.

If we cross the Atlantic Ocean and visit parishes of The Church of England. The situation is similar to that of Canada, although more up-to-date. “The Prayer Book” for everyone is the classic “Book of Common Prayer” used for centuries in this Church. The alternative to it was until 2000 known as “ASB” [The Alternative Service Book,1980], which is not unlike the American 1979, but since 2000 it has been the massive Common Worship in multiple volumes.

Let us now return to the United States and listen to conversation amongst members of The Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. , parishioners in a small minority of parishes in TEC, and parishioners of parishes in what is called “The Continuing Anglican Church[es]” (origins in 1977 by secession from PECUSA). Here we hear references to “the 1928 Book,” and “the classical Prayer Book,” and “the real and genuine Prayer Book.” And this book is contrasted with “the 1979 Book.” What is going on here is that this people believe that the genuine form of The Book of Common Prayer is that found in the 1928 edition authorized by PECUSA and that the 1979 edition is a very different kind of prayer book. And some of this number would add that TEC gave the wrong title to the 1979 prayer book, arguing that the edition of 1928 should have been retained as The BCP and the 1979 prayer book called by a title that distinguished it from the historic, classic prayer book.

Now it is time to go back in history to the time when much of the East of North America was in British control as various colonies. As part of the British Empire, the official prayer book in the colonies for those who were not Nonconformists or Scottish Presbyterians was The Book of Common Prayer as used in the national and established Church of England, of which the monarch was the supreme governor.

Only after the revolutionary wars and the birth of the United States of America, did the former Church of England members of the thirteen former colonies organize themselves into what they called “The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.” and begin the work of preparing their own form and edition of The Book of Common Prayer. This was approved in 1789. In Canada, which became independent later, the relation with the British crown continued after independence and so, when eventually a Canadian edition of The Book of Common Prayer was published in 1918, it was very different (e.g., in its prayers for the State than the U.S.A. edition of 1789 or 1892), for Canada was not a republic.

We are all familiar with the fact that significant books are both reprinted and also revised to make new editions—e.g., text-books and dictionaries. The Book of Common Prayer began its life in England as an official, printed book in 1549, was revised for a 1552 edition and then was further gently revised for re-publication at the beginning of the reigns of the English monarchs from Elizabeth I to Charles II. It has been re-printed hundreds of times. The edition of 1662 from the beginning of the reign of Charles II became the edition that went forth into the British Empire and was eventually translated in whole or part into over one hundred and fifty languages. It is still used widely especially in Africa, and is beginning to be used again in the U.S.A.

In North America since the arrival of the British in the seventeenth century and until the present, there has been the use of The Book of Common Prayer in one or another of its authentic editions—first of all, the English edition of 1662 until the end of the eighteenth century in the U.S.A., and in Canada until 1918; and the use of the 1789-1892-1928 editions in the U.S.A. with the use of the 1918-1962 editions in Canada. Both the U.S.A. and Canada have official alternatives to the classic BCP, in Canada the “BAS” of 1985 and in the U.S.A. the innovatory “Book of Common Prayer” of 1979. Regrettably TEC has effectively placed the 1928 edition in its archives, from which only a few in this Church recover it for use in public worship.

The Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. (founded in 1971 as The Society for the Preservation of The Book of Common Prayer) exists to keep the BCP 1928 in print and to encourage its use with understanding. It also supports the use of the other two editions of the classic Common Prayer Tradition in North America, the 1662 (now being “discovered” by the new Anglicanism outside TEC and in relation to African provinces) and the Canadian 1962.

Visit www.pbsusa.org and www.anglicanmarketplace.com for more details.

[Note that AN ANGLICAN PRAYER BOOK (2008) published for use by the AMIA and its friends is a contemporary language attempt to bring together the main contribution of all these Three editions of TheBCP for use in North America, USA and Canada.

available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or for bulk 1 800 727 1928]

END

drpetertoon@yahoo.com April 2, 2008

What’s the Purpose of a Prayer Book?

2008-04-02T21:22:00.002-05:00

You may say in reply, “What a silly question! You use a prayer book to pray.” But what if the question is: What is the purpose of The Book of Common Prayer in one of its classic editions (e.g., 1662)? Here the answer, “You use The BCP to pray,” is correct, but is only a partial and incomplete answer.

So is the answer, “The purpose of The BCP is to provide the text of the services of worship that Anglicans use in church services”? Or is it the longer answer, “ The purpose of The BCP is to provide the text of the services for public worship, for family prayers and for individual, personal prayer”?

Let us accept these two related answers and seek to clarify them as far as we are able.

First of all, we need to explain the fact that The BCP is the standard text and form of public worship in a given Church or Province. So The BCP is the Prayer Book of this or that specific Church. There is no BCP that stands alone in and of itself, for each edition is that of a Church or Province. Of course, other texts and rites may be authorized, but these are supplementary and not primary.

In the second place, we need state—and rather forcefully in these days where variety and choice are so highly valued— that The BCP with its multiple services and provision of collects and prayers is not intended to be used as a kind of quarry to take out of, or a resource to choose from, in order to provide a kind of mix-and-match product for use in church or anywhere else. The integrity of The BCP lies in its own internal structure and arrangement. There is a logic and flow to each of its services and to the order of them which, if disturbed, reduces the value and efficacy of the text.

Thirdly, The BCP in its original and definitive purpose is intended to be a godly provision — always hand in hand with the Bible in English — for the whole of the Year and for the whole of life. That is, it provides Daily Services for Morning and Evening (with required Bible readings, canticles, psalms and prayers) for every day of the year; The Litany for use on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays; The Order for Holy Communion for every Lord’s Day and Holy Day; Baptism for entrance into the Church and Kingdom of God; A Catechism to instruct youth; Confirmation for those baptized and instructed in the Faith; Holy Matrimony for those called to this honorable estate; Visitation and Communion Provisions for those who are sick, The Burial of the Dead for those who die as baptized Christians, and other things.

So the congregation has services for each and every day, and each and every Sunday and holy Day; and each person is provided the essentials beginning with baptism for his pilgrimage through life to the heavenly Jerusalem. All this together is intended to provide a godly discipline , leading to godly habits, for public worship, family life and personal discipleship. So all that is truly needed to walk in the way of holiness and to worship the Lord our God in the beauty of holiness is the guidance and structure of The BCP, which is always dependent upon the Bible, and which is read daily. Of course, these two essentials can be supplemented by additions such as a hymn or song book and appropriate music, but if any of these extras are treated as essentials, then the godly discipline is easily lost.

Unless I am mistaken, what is stated above is a message rarely passed on in today’s Anglicanism in the North or West. Nevertheless, though it is an ancient message, it is at the same time a message ever new to those who want to walk in the way of the Lord and within the Body of Christ, a fellowship where the saints of yesterday have a full vote today!

drpetertoon@yahoo.com www.pbsusa.com & www.anglicanmarketplace.com April 1.08

END

GAFCON, before or after Lambeth Conference, July 2008: A re-evaluation from a critic!

2008-03-31T15:03:00.002-05:00

Peter Toon March 31, 2008

Since 2007 I have written various pieces arguing that (a) if GAFCON [Global Anglican Future Conference] is to occur then it ought to be after not before Lambeth; (b) that the East and West African Bishops, who are boycotting Lambeth are needed there; and (c) that an extraordinary effort needs to be made before, at, and after Lambeth to make room for the healing grace of God our Savior to flow into the life and affairs of the Anglican Communion of Churches. In stating this, I am fully aware that the in any reform and renewal of the Anglican Family, now so dysfunctional, the present dominance of the (in general, secularized) North will need to give much way to the (in general, dynamic and orthodox) South.

As I have continued to study carefully the statements and mindset of those who are behind GAFCON (e.g., the Primates of Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya, along with allies in America, Britain and Australia) what has come reasonably clear to me is this: that according to the developing mindset of the organizers, to have the conference and pilgrimage before Lambeth was essential to their deep sense of ministerial vocation and witness—a matter of conscience. This mindset has been profoundly influenced by the observation of the failure of the Anglican Communion of Churches, through its various Instruments of Unity and Lambeth Commissions and Reports, to do anything to halt the advance of the homosexual agenda in both The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Church of Canada, or to discipline these Churches for their heresies and immorality. Also there is the sense that Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, is at heart in sympathy with the innovations and has not done and will not do what was/is necessary to oppose them or to discipline the offenders.

To understand the mindset of GAFCON leadership, here is a message posted widely on the internet from GAFCON—www.gafcon.org :

Date: March 18, 2008
GAFCON is organized to enable the Anglican Orthodox to think, discuss and pray about the future of the Anglican Communion.

Many Anglican Orthodox leaders have come to the conclusion that the 2008 Lambeth conference as it is structured and led is fundamentally compromised and will not provide the environment and process to struggle with the challenges threatening the future of the communion.

The GAFCON gathering does not mean schism. It seeks to set out a clear biblically faithful and orthodox vision for the future of the Anglican Communion, share with the rest of the communion in all available forums and work at shaping the communion towards that end.

The Conference and Pilgrimage will identify the biblical and theological truths that unite and empower us, work on ways of equipping the whole church for ministry and mission, identify approaches and resources for the economic empowerment of the Church in the Global South, share experiences and resources of churches in their work addressing poverty, HIV/Aids, human rights, engagement in advocacy and policy and ministry in contexts of religious hostility and plurality.

Your support will enable Bishops and their wives to join with others not only in addressing the issues facing the future of orthodox witness in the Communion but particularly to chart a new path for developing enterprise solutions to poverty in many dioceses with important implications for their future well being... We believe this is one of the most important meetings involving the Anglican Communion that we have seen in our lifetime today. History is poised potentially to turn on its hinges if this gathering of world Anglican leaders is successful.

Sincerely in Christ

The Gafcon Leadership team
Donate to GAFCON by clicking here or going to www.gafcon.org
__________________________________

Let us now look at some of the main points or themes of this Plea for financial assistance.
The Conference is for those whom the organizers judge to be orthodox not for anyone who chooses to attend. Orthodoxy is probably defined as holding basic evangelical tenets and being opposed to the same-sex innovations.

The Conference is in some sense in opposition to or an alternative for the Lambeth Conference because the judgment is explicitly made that the Lambeth Conference, as organized under the leadership of Dr Williams, is incapable of addressing the real issues facing the Anglican Communion or doing anything about them, or of planning wisely for the future.

The holding of Jerusalem Conference in June 2008 does not meant that a schism is being formed; what it does mean is that an alternative vision (to the Lambeth 08 one global diversity) of what the Anglican Communion ought to be (when real input from the Global South is taken seriously) will be set forth in order to be carried around the world and made known to all who will listen.

At the heart of this new vision is commitment to Mission, but not only narrowly to evangelization of peoples and their conversion to Jesus Christ, but also to the ministry of healing and social service, facing some of the massive health, political, social and cultural challenges of our time—including poverty within many African dioceses .

Reflection

Let us seek to get inside the minds of the GAFCON leadership.

If, as leaders of a very large proportion of Anglicans in the world, you feel so deeply and strongly that the leadership of the Anglican Communion has so profoundly failed to address the deep doctrinal and moral errors of two of its prominent provinces; if you think that the A. of C. has failed in particular and has compounded his failure by inviting to Lambeth 08 the bishops who actually consecrated Gene Robinson—more culprits than Robinson himself; if you believe that the whole context and content of Lambeth 08 is deeply flawed and compromised and that instead of joyful orthodoxy there will be heresy or deeply-compromised faith dressed up as reasonable religion on view; and if you believe that being a part of this compromised conference will be to deny that Jesus is Lord and that his Church is to be faithful to his Word, then obviously you cannot attend. Further, you cannot stop there by being absent: you have to do something to proclaim to the Anglican Communion, and its friends around the world, that there is another and a better vision of what is the Communion—and this vision needs to be declared and known before the world is presented, via a big media presence, with the vision of the erring leadership and vision of Dr Williams and his team!

With me, a growing number is coming to understand and appreciate GAFCON and the powerful matter of informed, godly consciences involved, but this does not stop us also hoping and praying that, after the two Conferences, in 2008 a way will be found by God’s guidance to keep the Anglican Communion as ONE Global Family, but renewed in truth and grace and for mission.

Just how that can be is totally beyond my predictions right now but I can dream and pray and hope.

The Revd Dr Peter Toon March 31 2008 www.pbsusa.org drpetertoon@yahoo.com