Several people from the USA have asked me why I use the term "Minister" of myself in England.
The answer is that in the legal documents of the C of E the word "Minister" is a fixed and technical expression. Here is what is said in the "Churchwardens Measure of 2001," one of the latest official documents of the established C of E.
Minister refers to
(a) the incumbent of the parish
(b) a curate licensed to the charge of a parish or a minister acting as priest-in-charge while presentation to the living is suspended
(c) a team vicar in a team ministry....
(in all these instances the Minister has to be in presbyteral orders for deacons are not placed in charge of parishes or missions in the C of E. Minister of course is a long used expression in the reformed C of E -- see the BCP 1662 rubrics -- but these days it is useful in that it can refer to male and female persons who are presbyters/priests)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor, England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large of The Prayer Book Society of America
www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928
www.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk
Monday, March 11, 2002
Friday, March 08, 2002
Letter for Publication in Church Times
Dear Editor,
May I commend Pat Ashworth for a clear and accurate report (8 March) about the inhibition of the Revd Fr. David Moyer of Rosemont by the Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles Bennison.
I know the situation of the conservative parishes in Philadelphia reasonably well and have preached several times in recent years in the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, during frequent visits to the city.
What I think needs to be made clear to English readers about the way in which David has been inhibited by the Bishop is the following.
First, it has been done under the abandonment canon of the ECUSA and this canon is intended to refer only to those who have left the communion of the Episcopal Church. Fr. Moyer has not left either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion.
Secondly, under this canon, Bp. Bennison can proceed directly to deposition without an ecclesiastical trial, so long as he has the support of the Diocesan Standing Committee (which he presently does), thus denying Fr. Moyer a forum in which to be heard and present his case. In a country that celebrates human rights this is wholly deplorable action by the Bishop.
Thirdly, what the situation in Philadelphia illustrates is the character of the new religion of the autonomous ECUSA province. This refuses to tolerate either classical Anglo-Catholics or Evangelicals or any clergyman who seeks to uphold traditional, creedal orthodoxy and who will not support the lesbigay agenda. There is no comprehensiveness left in the greater part of the ECUSA.
We wait to see whether the Primates' Meeting in April will have anything useful to say about the persecution of biblically-minded Episcopalians by their own Church.
Yours truly,
The Revd Dr. Peter Toon, The Rectory, Biddulph Moor, Staffs.
Refreshment Sunday, Fourth Sunday in Lent
If we focus on the [traditional] Gospel for Lent IV - John 6: 1-15 - we can see why it has been called REFRESHMENT Sunday. Our Lord Jesus Christ is presented as providing a large crowd [in which were 5,000 men] on a green hillside overlooking the Sea of Galilee [= Tiberias] with a basic meal, in the days immediately before the Feast of Passover, thus at Springtime and with green grass on the hillside.
From this reading we learn much about Jesus himself, his disciples, and the Galilean people. Let us look at these in reverse order.
1. The men and women of Galilee are very impressed by Jesus as the Prophet who is also the Worker of miracles. They feel deeply the fact that they are a subject people whose land is occupied by a pagan, foreign power. Especially at the time of Passover do they remember the deliverance of the tribes of Israel from the bondage in the land of Egypt under Moses. So they look for a new Moses, a deliverer who will lead them out of bondage to Rome and into freedom as the covenant people of God, so that their land flows with milk and honey.
Thus after they have witnessed miracles on both sides of the Sea of Galilee performed by Jesus and have been fed by him in a remarkable way from food that was intended for one person (five flat barley cakes and two very small
fishes) they became very enthusiastic to appoint him as their Deliverer and King! But Jesus refused - he went off up the hill alone! His vocation as the Messiah & King of Israel was to be fulfilled by a different path - a very lonely path. He was the Son of Man who would suffer on behalf of his people to save them from spiritual bondage. He would not lead an army against the Roman occupying forces. In the 40 days in the wilderness he had rejected all such ideas and temptations.
2. The disciples and especially Philip had witnessed the SIGN that Jesus did at the wedding party in Cana. They should have been aware that Jesus could handle any needs of the large crowd. Yet when Jesus asked them about how they proposed to feed the crowd, which had become hungry after a long day, all they could propose was buying bread - an impractical suggestion in terms of where they were, their financial resources and the amount of food needed to feed so many. Apparently, they were men of little or no faith and the weeks spent with Jesus had not as yet made any major impact on their way of looking at the world! As a last resort, Andrew told Jesus of a boy with his basic poor-man's lunch; but he did not expect anything to come from this - yet it did!
3. Jesus is presented as the Master surrounded by his disciples, as the compassionate "Prophet" who wants to provide refreshment for a weary and hungry crowd, and as the Messiah who presents signs (miracles) in order to point to the glory of the Father who sent him and to his own vocation as the Son & Servant of the Father. He knows what he has to teach the disciples and people, what he has to do to fulfil his vocation, what is in the hearts and minds of the Galilean people, and how committed and enlightened is his band of disciples.
We have to read the rest of John 6 to begin to appreciate in greater detail precisely who is Jesus and what is his identity as well as what is the true food and drink that he provides for Jews and Gentiles. Why not do this!
Yet there is enough in John 6:1-15 to reveal to us that Jesus is able - pre-eminently able - to refresh us with the food that is from above. He is able to take care not only of our earthly needs ["seek first the kingdom of God and all these other things shall be made available"] but also, and more importantly, of our eternal needs for he is the bread of life from heaven and thus he provides food which nourishes unto eternal life.
"We feed on thee, thou living Bread!"
The Revd Dr Peter Toon March 8, 2002
Into "Contemporary Language" from "Traditional Language"
"If a job is worth doing it is worth doing well"
Since the 1960s the Anglican Churches of the West/North have produced a vast supply of new liturgies and published them in booklets and books, and more recently on web-sites. Virtually all of them have been part of a search for relevance to the modern age and of being meaningful for young people. And the claim has often been made that they are based upon the very earliest liturgies used in the Church in ancient times. Therefore, we have thus heard a lot about the proper "shape" or structure of the Order for Holy Communion [the Eucharist] and of the Daily Offices.
Amazingly, in all this change, the classic Anglican services as printed in "The Book of Common Prayer" (1662/1928 et al) have been available and remain widely used in their original form. This is in part due to the efforts of the Prayer Book Societies around the world.
Since there is today an inbuilt (culturally based?) resistance to the use of so-called traditional language in the West, and since there are those who believe that the central services of the classic B.C.P. in terms of both their structure and their doctrine/piety are still relevant and viable in the modern Church, it is not surprising that attempts have been made, notably in England and Australia, to render the Daily Offices & Order for Holy Communion from the 1662 B.C.P. into "contemporary English." (for the very latest efforts of the new millennium see the Website of the Diocese of Sydney, Australia and see "Common Worship", 2001, from the C. of E.).
If one judges these texts/liturgies in terms of the principles guiding those who have produced the modern services in "contemporary English" for the vast supply of booklets and prayer books since the 1960s, then one can say that they have done a reasonable job! But to say this is hardly a compliment!
If one begins from the doctrine contained in the original text, then one has to conclude after careful reading of the modern renderings, that (in general and with variation) they have both weakened and changed that doctrine, so that what they present is often a kind of strong form of modern popular evangelical doctrine and not the reformed catholic (= authentically Protestant) doctrine of the B.C.P.
Then in terms of translation of ancient texts such as the Creed and Canticles they have tended to use the forms produced by international commissions (which have had a most obvious liberal bias). What is more distasteful than, "You are God and we praise you" (bully for us!)? How much better is, "We praise you, O God, .."
Further, in the modernization of prayers they have followed the way of the modern liturgists and gone for a method that, when carefully examined, dishonours God! For example in the Collect for Purity, they have begun well and then taken a bad turn. "Almighty God" (fine start) "to you all hearts are open" (bad turn). The all-knowing Deity does not need you and me to tell him what he knows. The proper way is to acknowledge what he knows as obedient creatures; thus we should pray " Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open.." (good turn).
In the light of all this (if true!), what is the proper and appropriate response of those who care for and use the classic texts of the B.C.P. as living liturgies?
One could throw up one's hands in holy horror and bemoan what is happening and try to persuade people to stop this form of liturgy. I doubt if any will take much notice.
Rather, it would seem that there is an obligation laid upon those who see the Anglican Way as particularly wedded to its classic B.C.P. ( and so especially members of the Prayer Book Societies of the world!) to produce a Study Document in which are renderings into standard modern English of the major texts of the B.C.P. 1662/1928. The purpose of such texts in a Study Booklet would be to allow liturgists to compare their texts with those in the Booklet and have the opportunity thereby to improve their own texts.
Whether we like it not modern services based upon the classic B.C.P, are going to be produced and used, if for no other reason than that people feel a need to be in touch with their roots.
Further, and from the traditionalist perspective, it is highly probable that, if people get to use a sound contemporary version of the texts from the classic B.C.P., they will both learn sound Anglican doctrine and also be curious to use the original texts in the so-called traditional English.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon March 8, 2002
Since the 1960s the Anglican Churches of the West/North have produced a vast supply of new liturgies and published them in booklets and books, and more recently on web-sites. Virtually all of them have been part of a search for relevance to the modern age and of being meaningful for young people. And the claim has often been made that they are based upon the very earliest liturgies used in the Church in ancient times. Therefore, we have thus heard a lot about the proper "shape" or structure of the Order for Holy Communion [the Eucharist] and of the Daily Offices.
Amazingly, in all this change, the classic Anglican services as printed in "The Book of Common Prayer" (1662/1928 et al) have been available and remain widely used in their original form. This is in part due to the efforts of the Prayer Book Societies around the world.
Since there is today an inbuilt (culturally based?) resistance to the use of so-called traditional language in the West, and since there are those who believe that the central services of the classic B.C.P. in terms of both their structure and their doctrine/piety are still relevant and viable in the modern Church, it is not surprising that attempts have been made, notably in England and Australia, to render the Daily Offices & Order for Holy Communion from the 1662 B.C.P. into "contemporary English." (for the very latest efforts of the new millennium see the Website of the Diocese of Sydney, Australia and see "Common Worship", 2001, from the C. of E.).
If one judges these texts/liturgies in terms of the principles guiding those who have produced the modern services in "contemporary English" for the vast supply of booklets and prayer books since the 1960s, then one can say that they have done a reasonable job! But to say this is hardly a compliment!
If one begins from the doctrine contained in the original text, then one has to conclude after careful reading of the modern renderings, that (in general and with variation) they have both weakened and changed that doctrine, so that what they present is often a kind of strong form of modern popular evangelical doctrine and not the reformed catholic (= authentically Protestant) doctrine of the B.C.P.
Then in terms of translation of ancient texts such as the Creed and Canticles they have tended to use the forms produced by international commissions (which have had a most obvious liberal bias). What is more distasteful than, "You are God and we praise you" (bully for us!)? How much better is, "We praise you, O God, .."
Further, in the modernization of prayers they have followed the way of the modern liturgists and gone for a method that, when carefully examined, dishonours God! For example in the Collect for Purity, they have begun well and then taken a bad turn. "Almighty God" (fine start) "to you all hearts are open" (bad turn). The all-knowing Deity does not need you and me to tell him what he knows. The proper way is to acknowledge what he knows as obedient creatures; thus we should pray " Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open.." (good turn).
In the light of all this (if true!), what is the proper and appropriate response of those who care for and use the classic texts of the B.C.P. as living liturgies?
One could throw up one's hands in holy horror and bemoan what is happening and try to persuade people to stop this form of liturgy. I doubt if any will take much notice.
Rather, it would seem that there is an obligation laid upon those who see the Anglican Way as particularly wedded to its classic B.C.P. ( and so especially members of the Prayer Book Societies of the world!) to produce a Study Document in which are renderings into standard modern English of the major texts of the B.C.P. 1662/1928. The purpose of such texts in a Study Booklet would be to allow liturgists to compare their texts with those in the Booklet and have the opportunity thereby to improve their own texts.
Whether we like it not modern services based upon the classic B.C.P, are going to be produced and used, if for no other reason than that people feel a need to be in touch with their roots.
Further, and from the traditionalist perspective, it is highly probable that, if people get to use a sound contemporary version of the texts from the classic B.C.P., they will both learn sound Anglican doctrine and also be curious to use the original texts in the so-called traditional English.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon March 8, 2002
Wednesday, March 06, 2002
Holy Mother Church
There are many images or word pictures of the Church (ecclesia) in the New Testament - probably about 90!
We tend to use some of them very often and hardly notice others. And our use of this or that image tends to follow trends that begin somewhere (e.g., in the ecumenical movement or in an important R.C. document). So, for example, we have heard much recently of the Church as "Communion" and even "Community." And in the heyday of the charismatic movement it was all "the Body of Christ." At other times it has been "Family of God" "pilgrims and sojourners" and so on.
Some of the images have a definite feminine content not only in terms of grammatical gender but also in terms of what pictures and association of ideas they produce in the human mind. For example, the Church as the "Bride of Christ" (Ephesians 5:24ff.), the "spotless Spouse/wife" of the spotless Lamb (Revelation 19:7; 21:2 & 9; 22:17) and, of course, "Mother" (Galatians 4:26). Because of these images of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the whole Christian tradition - Orthodox, Roman Catholic & Protestant -- uses the feminine pronoun, "she" of the Church.
Catholics speak of "holy Mother Church" and even Protestants sing, "From heaven he came and sought her to be his holy bride."
What is conveyed to us by the image of the Church as Mother?
A mother conceives a child, bears him in her womb, gives birth to him, suckles him, feeds and cares for him, provides for and guides him, feels his pain and enjoys his successes and then is there for him for as long as she lives, however old and experienced he is.
So when we think of the Church as our mother we think of the Church as the s phere where the Word of God is preached and taught, the sacraments are administered, fellowship in the Lord and with others is provided, healing and nurture are available and given, prayer one for another is asked for and offered, and ministries of many kinds are available to every need. When the human being first as convert, then as catechumen, then as baptized believer and then as mature Christian experiences the nurture and care of the Church then he knows the Church as Mother.
In and by holy mother Church, who is the Bride of the Lord Jesus Christ, the sinner hears the call of the Gospel and is brought to spiritual birth and so enters the kingdom of God; he is baptized in the Church and admitted to the Table of the Lord to be fed with heavenly manna and for the whole of his life as a Christian he is nourished and cared for by this holy Mother.
This holy Mother, the Bride of the heavenly Bridegroom, belongs not merely to space and time but also to heaven for she is the new Jerusalem in heaven (Galatians 4:26) whose loving arms, as it were, hold within them all baptized believers in space and time. In this sense the word "catholic" in the Creed has reference to the true universal dimension, to both heaven and earth, the invisible and visible worlds, for the Church is first of heaven and then of earth.
The Church acts as our Mother through the presence of the Holy Ghost and under the guidance of Christ the Bridegroom, and she provides nurture and care through the use of the Ministry and all the members.
So we can speak of being formed in her womb, being brought into the kingdom of God by her, of receiving milk from her breasts and honey from her table, of being given loving care from her hands, and of resting our weary selves in her lap. And we can say all this because we understand the use of images and symbolism as means of conveying important truths in attractive ways.
And as one leading Protestant Reformer wrote: " You cannot have God [the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ] as your Father unless you have the Church as your Mother." He was right as long as we realize that "Father" is a proper Name for the first Person of the Holy Trinity while "Mother" is not a proper name for but an image of the Ecclesia of God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon March 6, 2002
The fourth Sunday in Lent.
On this Lord's Day we look back over 22 days of Lent and three Sundays in Lent. Our pilgrimage towards the Cross of Jesus and his empty tomb is more than half way there. We have eighteen more days of Lent and two more Sundays to go before we can cry out, "Christ is risen from the dead, Alleluia!"
This Sunday is a day of joy, captured by the original introit from Isaiah 66:10, "Rejoice ye with Jerusalem" - thus Laetare (Latin for rejoice) Sunday. It is also the day we call both Mothering (from the Epistle) and Refreshment (from the Gospel) Sunday. Traditionally it is a day where we allow ourselves major relief from our discipline of fasting and enjoy a special treat (e.g., a piece of simnel cake if we are in a British culture).
The EPISTLE from Galatians 4:21-31 is not easy for modern readers as it contains Paul's use of allegory to contrast the old and new covenants, that from Sinai with that from the Calvary, the Cross of Christ. In his allegory, which is addressed to Christians who were reverting to Jewish practices, the apostle contrasts two women who were mothers (Hagar, the slave, & Sarah, the free woman), their two sons (Ishmael & Isaac), the two forms of religion represented by them, one of bondage and one of freedom; two cities, the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem as the centres of these religions; two forms of spiritual motherhood, and two distinct futures in relation to the God of Moses and of Jesus.
The Church of God, centred in the heavenly Jerusalem, is presented as the Mother of all believers. Thus the word "Mothering", pointing to the Church as the loving sphere in which we are born from above by the Word and the Spirit of God and as the holy place where we are nurtured as Christians. We cannot have the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ as our Father unless we have the church as our mother! There is no individualistic Christianity!
The GOSPEL is from John 6:1-14 and is the account of the feeding of the multitude by Jesus at the time of Passover. From this event we gain the name of Refreshment Sunday, for we believe that Jesus provides living and everlasting refreshment for our souls. It is good for us to read the part of John 6 which is not included in the Gospel [verses 15ff.] for there we learn of Jesus as the Bread of Life, something which is only hinted at in the verses used for the Gospel reading this day.
In the COLLECT we also look to the Cross and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as the source and basis for our petition to God the Father to have mercy upon us and to forgive us for our evil deeds.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
Revival of "traditional" language?
There began inside the Church in the late 1950s and moreso in the 1960s a major change in the way that English-speaking Christians addressed and referred to God the LORD.
The received form of language, the English dialect of prayer, was judged by leaders of social change to be irrelevant and outdated. They emphasized that God must be addressed in the same way that people are addressed and so they began to remove such pronouns as Thee and Thou with related words from the translation of the Bible and sacred texts as well as from public prayers. "Hallowed be thy Name" became "May your Name be holy."
The Revised Standard Version of the Bible from the 1950s and 1960s sought to preserve part of the received Dialect of Prayer, but it was the last of the modern Bible translations to do so.
Thus when the Episcopal Church set about the revision of the received Book of Common Prayer (1928) in the 1960s, it is not surprising that the Standing Liturgical Commission soon decided that much if not all of their productions had to be in what was being called "contemporary language." We may note that the Episcopal Church was deeply affected by the social revolution of the 1960s whose greatest effect was upon the types and classes of people who attended parishes of the ECUSA.
It is reported that all "traditional language" would have been removed from the projected new prayer book (published eventually in 1976) had not the then Presiding Bishop insisted that it also contain some services/rites in traditional language. However, when we examine the final product, the Prayer Book approved in 1979, we note two things:
Traditional language is only provided for Morning and Evening Prayer, for the Eucharist and for the Burial of the Dead (called Rite I). Significantly, the Psalter, Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony & Ordination Services are not provided in traditional language. The services themselves in traditional language are not identical with the services from the classic Prayer Book tradition (e.g., BCP 1928), but they are made to conform in basic respects to the new structure and doctrine of the Rite II, contemporary language and theology services.
This suggests, and experience since 1979 has confirmed, that the majority in the ECUSA General Convention wanted to phase out received traditional doctrine, piety and language, but were prepared to retain some of it in the short term for the older membership who after all were generous suppliers of funds! Since 1979 no traditional language rite has been used at the General Convention Daily Service and very few if any bishops have chosen voluntarily to use such in parochial visitations or diocesan meetings.
And we may add that unlike England and Canada (and other places) where the new Prayer Book existed alongside the traditional Prayer Book (BCP 1662), the ECUSA made the 1979 book a total replacement for the 1928 BCP. Thereby the classic source of the English dialect of prayer was removed in the USA.
The cumulative effect upon generally subservient parishioners over two decades and more of using only contemporary language rites for praying and singing psalms, baptizing and confirming children, and being married, is that the general mindset has conformed to the religion and doctrine of these new rites. Thus there has been a diminishing resistance in the ECUSA amongst religious and social conservatives to novel teaching on a wide range of topics, but especially to the doctrine of God, the Ministry and human sexuality. Now Deity can be addressed by any name and marriage between people of the same sex is acceptable!
However, the contemporary language and innovatory doctrine of the 1979 texts followed by many more novel and approved texts since then, have not won a complete victory in the ECUSA. Though some parishes still use the 1928 BCP and though fewer parishes are using Rite 1 now than in say 1990, there is a growing interest in what lies behind Rite 1, the authentic texts found in the classic Book of Common Prayer in its 1662 or 1928 editions. This interest is at its strongest amongst educated young people in the 20s and 30s who are beginning to take seriously what they call "the values" of their grandparents' generation.
The time has come for all who use Rite 1, because they prefer the traditional dialect of prayer, to move to using the texts from the classic BCP in order to preserve the Anglican Way in its classic form. When this is done creatively by churches they will find an increasing interest from young, educated people. Rite I is like having a second hand car when you can get a new one - the 1928 BCP - for the same price!
Also the time has come for those churches which now use the classic BCP to do so in such a way that it is recognizable to all that they are using this Liturgy for what it is and not drowning it in a variety of additions and extras. It is the classic Liturgy offered to the Father through the Son in the Spirit that will provide worship in the beauty of holiness.
Having said all this, I must also say that to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth is possible in contemporary language as long as the language serves the truth that is in Christ Jesus and not the values of the social revolution of recent times. But my point here is to do with the continued pastoral usefulness of traditional language as a way of addressing the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon MARCH 6, 2002
MOYER TO BENNISON: WILL YOU AFFIRM BASIC DOCTRINES?
By William Murchison
PHILADELPHIA - A leading traditionalist rector inhibited by his liberal bishop says the bishop can settle the controversy by affirming key articles of the Christian faith.
Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison, Jr., last weekend ordered the Rev. David L. Moyer to stand down from his priestly duties for six months. Due to Bishop Bennison's theological positions, Fr. Moyer and his historic Anglo-Catholic parish, Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, have repeatedly refused the bishop's demands for an official visit to the parish.
In a letter to the bishop Tuesday, Fr. Moyer contested the order barring him from the exercise of his duties and invited the bishop to "clarify" any theological misunderstandings between them by publicly affirming Jesus Christ's uniqueness and bodily Resurrection, the unacceptability of sex outside heterosexual marriage, and the Holy Scriptures as God's inspired Word.
"To bring us to the point of reconciliation," Fr. Moyer's letter said, "I respectfully ask that you publicly affirm these tenets of the Christian faith promptly, and certainly before Holy Week. Upon your public affirmations I would see myself in a position to welcome you to the Church of the Good Shepherd for a full episcopal visitation."
"You remain in my daily prayers," Fr. Moyer concluded, "and in the prayers of the people of Good Shepherd."
Fr. Moyer, besides serving as Good Shepherd's rector since 1989, is president of the Episcopal Church's largest traditionalist organization, Forward in Faith/North America."
Bishop Bennison, in various public statements, has taken positions many see as contradicting moral and theological doctrines central to Christianity, as in the bishop's assertion that "Because we [the Church] wrote the Bible, we can rewrite it." The bishop likewise has argued that "[W]e should approve gay and lesbian marriage."
Fr. Moyer's letter outlines the traditional understanding in these controversies with citations from the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and Anglicanism's almost 500-year-old Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.
Fr. Moyer denied having abandoned the Episcopal Church, as alleged in the order of inhibition, which he said was based on a finding by the diocesan standing committee. "It is precisely," Fr. Moyer said, "my grave concern for and loyalty to the Communion of the Church that undergirds my continuing and consistent actions as a priest."
Inhibition, an unusual action, is designed for use against priests who have renounced the Episcopal Church and is rarely if ever contested. Fr. Moyer considers himself an Episcopal priest and 137-year-old Good Shepherd an Episcopal parish despite their deep differences with the bishop over theology.
Fr. Moyer, rector since 1989, said he had chosen "at this time.to take an in-house retreat to be concentrated in prayer and discernment, and not formally engaging in priestly duties." During the period priestly duties at Good Shepherd will be handled by two staff priests and a deacon.
Meanwhile Fr. Moyer's attorney, John H. Lewis, Jr., in a letter to the Pennsylvania diocese's chief attorney, staked out his client's legal position, calling the inhibition order "invalid, illegal, unjust, and unchristian."
"The plain truth," Lewis wrote Chancellor William C. Bullitt, "is that Fr. Moyer has not abandoned the Communion of the Church. Bishop Bennison and the Standing Committee knew (or should have known) that to be true. In their apparent desire to find a way to remove Fr. Moyer from the priesthood and, at the same time, to deny him any rights to contest that action, they have distorted a Canon of the Church that was never intended to deal with a priest who is attempting to be faithful to the doctrine of the Church."
"It is Bishop Bennison," Lewis charged, "who has rejected creed and doctrine while trying to enforce 'discipline.'"
Fr. Moyer also received strong support from Church of England traditionalists. The head of the English Forward in Faith organization, the Rev. Geoffrey Kirk, asked Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold III "to act upon your own admonitions" concerning "inclusiveness and gracious conversation." Fr. Kirk said Forward in Faith was "amazed and horrified" by Bishop Bennison's order. In a separate communication he appealed to Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey for intervention in the widening fray.
Tuesday, March 05, 2002
"The Liturgy is more than a text."
Episcopalians, Lutherans & the 1979 prayer book of the ECUSA.
Looking back to the 1979 ECUSA prayer book, it is now possible to claim that the key to understanding its liturgy (as well as the liturgies that have been produced in its spirit from 1979 to 2001) is found on pages 400-401.
In a lecture at Virginia Seminary to commemorate the 450th anniversary of the Anglican Common Prayer, the Lutheran scholar, Gordon W. Lathrop, stated: "American Episcopalians are in the forefront of those who know and teach that liturgy is more than text." And then he pointed to the book, Shaped by Images (1995), by William Seth Adams for illustration of this point.
He proceeded to claim that: "One way to understand the remarkable pages 400-401 at the center of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer -- the text-less 'Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist' -- is that they are the very hermeneutical key to the entire book." That is, these pages provide " a way to understand how the other texts of all the rites have their meaning as they are used in a shaped communal action." Further, "they are not an after-thought for 'informal services,' but they are an opening of the book towards its future, an awareness that the book of the church is always in process." (See Virginia Seminary Journal, January 2000, for the text of the lecture).
What Professor Lathrop asserts is not new. We have been hearing for several decades from liturgists and bishops in the ECUSA and in the C. of E. about "the shape of the liturgy" and that common prayer is to be seen not as a common text but as a common structure with common elements, allowing a variety of forms of words.
So what is on pages 400-401? The barebones structure of the Eucharist as envisaged by those who produced the 1979 prayer book. Parishes are free to insert material of their choice under the eight headings -- Gather, Proclaim, Pray, Exchange the Peace, Prepare the Table, Make Eucharist, Break the Bread & Share the Gifts of God.
In 1979 it was assumed that the material to fill in the spaces would be taken from the 1979 book itself, but now with the creation of more official Rites as Supplementary Texts (e.g., Enriching Our Worship, 1998) by the ECUSA, and with the existence of ecumenical web-sites containing all kinds of suggestions, the possibilities for experiment and novelty are immense. Further, with the pressure from the feminist lobby for "gender-neutral" or "feminine" names for God and forms of address to God, this possibility of novelty increases all the time, as congregations dare to move further away from traditional "God-language" and moral discourse. The worship committee meeting on Wednesday has great opportunity using the scissor and paste method to produce a liturgy to suit the most recent taste and preference (whether God be glorified or not!).
Thus what is claimed to be "Common Prayer" in the Episcopal Church is now effectively a minimal common structure wherein can be inserted anything from texts of historical orthodoxy in traditional or modern language to texts celebrating the goddess, Sophia. For some people, the structure is the most important thing for that is what makes it authentic!
It is important to note that this common structure for the Eucharist is not the same structure as found in the classic Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1662, 1928 etc.) and that it is not possible to fit the content of the historic BCP into the modern structure proposed by the 1979 book without changing its doctrine thereby. (In the new Common Worship, 2001, of the C. of E., the editors apparently took great care to set out the structure of the services before the text of them was given.)
Why would a Lutheran professor be so happy about the new Episcopalian/Anglican sense of "common prayer"?
Here is a possible answer. Lutherans have never had the equivalent of the Book of Common Prayer as Text and Formulary. They have never had Liturgical Formularies (e.g., as are the classic Anglican Book of Common Prayer & the Ordinal) to unite them as a jurisdiction of the Church. Rather they have been a Confessional Church ("We believe, teach and confess.") based upon the Augsburg Confession, and the structure of their worship has been guided in principle not by a common text but by common structures. Their Liturgical Books are not primarily collections of texts but essays on how to lead liturgy and teach the Faith. This is not to say that many Lutheran parishes have not used common services, but it is to say that for them common prayer does not mean a common text but a common (and minimal) structure for Word and Sacrament.
Now that the ECUSA and the ELCA [Evangelical Lutheran Church of America] have joined together in a practical union from January 1, 2001, Lutherans such as Dr Lathrop rejoice because the ECUSA has moved to the position in terms of common prayer where the ELCA can truly be glad. In effect the ECUSA has come to the position adopted by the Lutheran leaders in the 16th century concerning Rites and Ceremonies (but not, we may add, with regard to doctrine). What matters for leaders of Episcopalians and Lutherans now is not a common text but a common structure for liturgy.
Thus it seems that there is room in the uniting Episcopal-Lutheran body for all types of Lutherans and Episcopalians to be united in a common worship because they have reduced common prayer to a common structure, wherein they can insert material of choice. So one parish will seek to be orthodox in doctrine and morality while another will knowingly be neo-pagan. This will be possible because on the one side the Augsburg Confession and on the other the Anglican Formularies will be merely "historical documents." And the Bible will be seen not as authoritative in all matters of faith and morality but as a collection of books describing the experiences of people in ancient times of God; therefore it is authoritative only in that it is first in order, rather than first because foundational.
Some of us prefer the older Anglican Way of using classical texts for Liturgy and finding in these texts the richness of doctrine and devotion that the saints over the centuries have poured into them and found through them.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Looking back to the 1979 ECUSA prayer book, it is now possible to claim that the key to understanding its liturgy (as well as the liturgies that have been produced in its spirit from 1979 to 2001) is found on pages 400-401.
In a lecture at Virginia Seminary to commemorate the 450th anniversary of the Anglican Common Prayer, the Lutheran scholar, Gordon W. Lathrop, stated: "American Episcopalians are in the forefront of those who know and teach that liturgy is more than text." And then he pointed to the book, Shaped by Images (1995), by William Seth Adams for illustration of this point.
He proceeded to claim that: "One way to understand the remarkable pages 400-401 at the center of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer -- the text-less 'Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist' -- is that they are the very hermeneutical key to the entire book." That is, these pages provide " a way to understand how the other texts of all the rites have their meaning as they are used in a shaped communal action." Further, "they are not an after-thought for 'informal services,' but they are an opening of the book towards its future, an awareness that the book of the church is always in process." (See Virginia Seminary Journal, January 2000, for the text of the lecture).
What Professor Lathrop asserts is not new. We have been hearing for several decades from liturgists and bishops in the ECUSA and in the C. of E. about "the shape of the liturgy" and that common prayer is to be seen not as a common text but as a common structure with common elements, allowing a variety of forms of words.
So what is on pages 400-401? The barebones structure of the Eucharist as envisaged by those who produced the 1979 prayer book. Parishes are free to insert material of their choice under the eight headings -- Gather, Proclaim, Pray, Exchange the Peace, Prepare the Table, Make Eucharist, Break the Bread & Share the Gifts of God.
In 1979 it was assumed that the material to fill in the spaces would be taken from the 1979 book itself, but now with the creation of more official Rites as Supplementary Texts (e.g., Enriching Our Worship, 1998) by the ECUSA, and with the existence of ecumenical web-sites containing all kinds of suggestions, the possibilities for experiment and novelty are immense. Further, with the pressure from the feminist lobby for "gender-neutral" or "feminine" names for God and forms of address to God, this possibility of novelty increases all the time, as congregations dare to move further away from traditional "God-language" and moral discourse. The worship committee meeting on Wednesday has great opportunity using the scissor and paste method to produce a liturgy to suit the most recent taste and preference (whether God be glorified or not!).
Thus what is claimed to be "Common Prayer" in the Episcopal Church is now effectively a minimal common structure wherein can be inserted anything from texts of historical orthodoxy in traditional or modern language to texts celebrating the goddess, Sophia. For some people, the structure is the most important thing for that is what makes it authentic!
It is important to note that this common structure for the Eucharist is not the same structure as found in the classic Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1662, 1928 etc.) and that it is not possible to fit the content of the historic BCP into the modern structure proposed by the 1979 book without changing its doctrine thereby. (In the new Common Worship, 2001, of the C. of E., the editors apparently took great care to set out the structure of the services before the text of them was given.)
Why would a Lutheran professor be so happy about the new Episcopalian/Anglican sense of "common prayer"?
Here is a possible answer. Lutherans have never had the equivalent of the Book of Common Prayer as Text and Formulary. They have never had Liturgical Formularies (e.g., as are the classic Anglican Book of Common Prayer & the Ordinal) to unite them as a jurisdiction of the Church. Rather they have been a Confessional Church ("We believe, teach and confess.") based upon the Augsburg Confession, and the structure of their worship has been guided in principle not by a common text but by common structures. Their Liturgical Books are not primarily collections of texts but essays on how to lead liturgy and teach the Faith. This is not to say that many Lutheran parishes have not used common services, but it is to say that for them common prayer does not mean a common text but a common (and minimal) structure for Word and Sacrament.
Now that the ECUSA and the ELCA [Evangelical Lutheran Church of America] have joined together in a practical union from January 1, 2001, Lutherans such as Dr Lathrop rejoice because the ECUSA has moved to the position in terms of common prayer where the ELCA can truly be glad. In effect the ECUSA has come to the position adopted by the Lutheran leaders in the 16th century concerning Rites and Ceremonies (but not, we may add, with regard to doctrine). What matters for leaders of Episcopalians and Lutherans now is not a common text but a common structure for liturgy.
Thus it seems that there is room in the uniting Episcopal-Lutheran body for all types of Lutherans and Episcopalians to be united in a common worship because they have reduced common prayer to a common structure, wherein they can insert material of choice. So one parish will seek to be orthodox in doctrine and morality while another will knowingly be neo-pagan. This will be possible because on the one side the Augsburg Confession and on the other the Anglican Formularies will be merely "historical documents." And the Bible will be seen not as authoritative in all matters of faith and morality but as a collection of books describing the experiences of people in ancient times of God; therefore it is authoritative only in that it is first in order, rather than first because foundational.
Some of us prefer the older Anglican Way of using classical texts for Liturgy and finding in these texts the richness of doctrine and devotion that the saints over the centuries have poured into them and found through them.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Monday, March 04, 2002
G Kirk to F Griswold
F in F England to P B Griswold---- a necessary note but falling I expect on deaf ears
Dear Presiding Bishop,
I am attaching to this message copies of an email sent recently to Bishop Bennison and a letter sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Forward in Faith UK is amazed and horrified by the persecution in your Church of those who seek to remain faithful to it, asking merely the understanding and tolerance which in the Church of England is accorded freely and as a matter of course.
On Thursday next the Archbishop of Canterbury will be consecrating to the episcopate Fr Keith Newton, to serve as the second Bishop of Richborough and to provide Extended Episcopal Care in the Province of Canterbury. Between Fr Moyer and Fr Newton there is no discernible difference of opinion or doctrine, and yet the one is elevated to be a bishop in the Church of God and the other is inhibited from the exercise of priestly minstry in the parish to which he has been duly called.
We read frequently of your calls to inclusiveness and to gracious conversation. We appeal to you now, in this matter, to act upon you own admonition. Wage reconcilaition in the heart of the Church, for fear that if you do not the world may hear your words as empty rhetoric and mere cant.
With all good wishes,
Geoffrey Kirk,
National Secretary FiF/UK
Dear Presiding Bishop,
I am attaching to this message copies of an email sent recently to Bishop Bennison and a letter sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Forward in Faith UK is amazed and horrified by the persecution in your Church of those who seek to remain faithful to it, asking merely the understanding and tolerance which in the Church of England is accorded freely and as a matter of course.
On Thursday next the Archbishop of Canterbury will be consecrating to the episcopate Fr Keith Newton, to serve as the second Bishop of Richborough and to provide Extended Episcopal Care in the Province of Canterbury. Between Fr Moyer and Fr Newton there is no discernible difference of opinion or doctrine, and yet the one is elevated to be a bishop in the Church of God and the other is inhibited from the exercise of priestly minstry in the parish to which he has been duly called.
We read frequently of your calls to inclusiveness and to gracious conversation. We appeal to you now, in this matter, to act upon you own admonition. Wage reconcilaition in the heart of the Church, for fear that if you do not the world may hear your words as empty rhetoric and mere cant.
With all good wishes,
Geoffrey Kirk,
National Secretary FiF/UK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)