A Meditation for Advent
First of all, we note that neither the expression "The Trinity" nor the word "Christmas" is found in the biblical narratives concerning the birth of Jesus who was called the Christ. This is true both of the New Testament (Matthew 1, Luke 1, John 1) and of the passages in the Old Testament regarded as prophetic of this birth (e.g., Isaiah 8:14).
"Christmas" is a noun used in the Church to speak of the festival of the birth of Jesus, son of Mary and Son of God the Father, who is the Christ [Christ-Mass]; while "The Trinity" is the Name given by the Church to the One God, who by self-revelation has made it known that He exists eternally as Three Persons [the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost].
This said, The Trinity (as the Christian word for Deity) has much to do with that which is celebrated in the festival of Christmas. Let me explain.
In the Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus and its meaning we certainly read of "God the Lord" [Jehovah/Yahweh], of the presence of "the Holy Ghost/Spirit" of and from this God [who is the God of Moses, David and the Prophets], and of Jesus who is called "Emmanuel" [God with us]. Further, "God the Lord" is also called "the Father" and Jesus is called "the Word made flesh" and "the Father's only [begotten] Son."
We may say that what we have in the New Testament are doctrines about God as the Father, about Jesus as his Son, about the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. In the narratives and the doctrines of the N.T. are examples of how each of the Three acts in human redemption in relation to the Others and in relation to mankind. So the Father loves the Son and the Son obeys the Father. The Holy Ghost causes the conception in Mary's womb which is also simultaneously the assumption by the eternal Son of human nature/flesh. And so on. Yet in the NT we have not reached any fixed or settled way of stating the unique equality and unity of the Three and of how they are a plurality in unity so that there is only one God.
From this teaching and evidence, and through her ongoing experience of God as One yet Three, the Church by the 4th century created what we call the dogma of the Holy Trinity [Nicene Creed]. This is first of all a statement about God as God is in and unto Himself - He is a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity: One God and three Persons. There are not three gods but there is One God (one Godhead, divine nature/substance) who eternally exists as three Persons [the Father & the Son & the Holy Ghost]. For Western Christians the fullness of this dogma is declared most succinctly and powerfully in the Creed we know as the Athanasian Creed [the Quincunque Vult].
Then from this dogma of The Trinity (known to theologians as the doctrine of "the immanent Trinity") the Church created what is called the doctrine of the Economic Trinity [God the Trinity acting in relation to the world and to the human race]. That is, with the insights from the dogma of the immanent Trinity, and using the biblical material, the Church spoke of the action of God in space/time and especially in the economy or action of salvation/redemption. This sophisticated talk of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (the Economic Trinity) engaged in the creation and redemption of the world is found in sermons and liturgies from the Early Church and is the most basic level of the language in the classic liturgies of the Church through time. For example, it underlies all statements in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (first edition 1549). In the historic Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches we have marvelous presentations of both the Dogma of the [immanent] Holy Trinity (one Substance/three Persons) and of the doctrine of the Economic Trinity based upon that Dogma and interpreting the biblical doctrines and narratives for the purpose of doxology.
Thus what occurred in the original historical actions that we commemorate in the Festival of Christmas is, we may say, an Event of the Holy Trinity. The Father sends His Only Son, the Word, into space and time, and in that coming the Holy Ghost causes Him to assume human nature and flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary and to be born from her. Though there are specific actions of each of the Three [the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost], in and through all these actions is the action of the One Godhead, the One Deity. Thus we celebrate the action of a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity as the essential background to the very human story of a young woman giving birth to her first child, a son, and giving him a name, Jesus [the Lord our salvation]. By and through this son who is also the incarnate, enfleshed Son of God the Father, the Trinity has devised and will accomplish the salvation of the world.
To continue this meditation -- we see in all the great saving events of the life of Jesus the revelation of the Holy Trinity - e.g. in his baptism at the Jordan, in his Transfiguration on the Mountain, in his death on the Cross and in his Resurrection from the dead. The Incarnate Son is never alone for he is in Communion with the Father; and the Holy Ghost rests upon him and indwells his human nature. Further, at the deepest level He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and shares the one and identical divine nature with the Father and the Holy Ghost.
The LOVE that came down at Christmas is movement from the Love of the Father for the Son in the Holy Ghost, the inter-Trinitarian love, focused upon human sinners and their need in space and time.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Saturday, November 30, 2002
Friday, November 29, 2002
Archbishop Rowan Williams, Homosexuality & a Third Province
In a wide-ranging interview with the London Church Times (29th November), Dr Williams states that the Church of England should seriously consider creating a Third Province (to exist alongside those of Canterbury & York) for those parishes and priests opposed to women bishops. (It will be recalled that it was Dr Williams who pushed the Church in Wales to appoint an Episcopal Visitor for parishes in Wales which did not wish to receive bishops who ordained women.) At the moment there is a C of E Commission headed by the Bishop of Rochester looking into the ordaining of women to the Episcopate and these statements will probably have an influence on what is recommended to the Church.
Further, since Williams will have great influence in the General Synod when this is discussed this is good news for traditional anglo-catholics and evangelicals.
Williams also states that he will not ordain any person who is living in "a relationship" or partnership with a person of the same sex and that he will publicly abide by the resolution of the Lambeth Conference, 1998 on this matter. He had already made this clear in a Letter to all the Primates. Yet, at the same time, he would like the topic of sexuality still to be discussed.
In my judgment Williams' theology has been somewhat misunderstood and unfortunately attacked by some conservative evangelicals. There is no doubt but that he is a liberal Catholic theologian who has drunk deeply of Orthodox theology (he studied orthodox theology in Russia for his doctorate) and so he is deeply committed to the traditional and orthodox dogmas of the Person of Christ as the God-Man and of the Holy Trinity as Three Persons and one God. He has the great ability to take seriously all competent expressions of theology and is much more tolerant of traditional believers than most bishops I know. Further he is very gracious and kind person.
I repeat my call again to pray for him as he gets near to taking up his new Vocation in the See of Canterbury. Here is the Collect that I wrote several months ago, and I am grateful that some parishes in several provinces use it weekly.
"Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in thy providence hast established the ancient See of Canterbury as the primary instrument of unity of the Anglican Communion of Churches, we pray for Rowan whom thou hast called to be the Archbishop of Canterbury: By the abundance of they mercy, grant that he, repenting of his sins and conforming to thy holy law and wisdom, will enter into this holy office in the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of the same Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be ascribed glory and dominion now and for ever. Amen."
Web site of the CT is www.churchtimes.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Further, since Williams will have great influence in the General Synod when this is discussed this is good news for traditional anglo-catholics and evangelicals.
Williams also states that he will not ordain any person who is living in "a relationship" or partnership with a person of the same sex and that he will publicly abide by the resolution of the Lambeth Conference, 1998 on this matter. He had already made this clear in a Letter to all the Primates. Yet, at the same time, he would like the topic of sexuality still to be discussed.
In my judgment Williams' theology has been somewhat misunderstood and unfortunately attacked by some conservative evangelicals. There is no doubt but that he is a liberal Catholic theologian who has drunk deeply of Orthodox theology (he studied orthodox theology in Russia for his doctorate) and so he is deeply committed to the traditional and orthodox dogmas of the Person of Christ as the God-Man and of the Holy Trinity as Three Persons and one God. He has the great ability to take seriously all competent expressions of theology and is much more tolerant of traditional believers than most bishops I know. Further he is very gracious and kind person.
I repeat my call again to pray for him as he gets near to taking up his new Vocation in the See of Canterbury. Here is the Collect that I wrote several months ago, and I am grateful that some parishes in several provinces use it weekly.
"Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in thy providence hast established the ancient See of Canterbury as the primary instrument of unity of the Anglican Communion of Churches, we pray for Rowan whom thou hast called to be the Archbishop of Canterbury: By the abundance of they mercy, grant that he, repenting of his sins and conforming to thy holy law and wisdom, will enter into this holy office in the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of the same Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be ascribed glory and dominion now and for ever. Amen."
Web site of the CT is www.churchtimes.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
November 30th St Andrew's Day
[Between American Thanksgiving Day and Advent Sunday, St Andrew can get forgotten. Here is a reminder!] -- P.T.
If Archbishop Cranmer had used the Collect for St Andrew's Day in the Latin Sarum Missal (which had been used for many years in Ecclesia Anglicana) he would have translated it something like this:
"We humbly implore thy Majesty, O Lord, that as the blessed Apostle Andrew appeared on earth as a preacher and ruler of the Church, so he may be for us a perpetual intercessor with thee in heaven. Though Christ our Lord."
But this Collect was not used because the Reformed Church of England had set aside the medieval practice of asking for the intercession of saints.
Instead, for the first Book of the Common Prayer (1549) either Cranmer or a colleague provided this Collect:
"Almighty God, which hast given such grace to thy Apostle saint Andrew, that he counted the sharp and painful death of the cross to be an high honour, and a great glory: Grant us to take and esteem all troubles and adversities which shall come unto us for thy sake, as things profitable to us for the obtaining of everlasting life: through Jesus Christ our Lord."
But this Collect was rejected and a new one provided for the second edition of The Book of Common Prayer in 1552. Why? Because the foundation ( established in the relative clause, "which hast given.") was recognized to be a legend and not either a sure fact of history or a sound doctrine of the sacred Scriptures. We do not know for sure how Andrew died but a prominent legend states that he was martyred at Patras in Achaia in AD 60 on a cross shaped like a capital X. [See also Eusebius, Book 3. i.1]
By 1552 Cranmer was insistent that the basis of any petition to the Lord our God through Christ the Saviour must be on a sure biblical foundation.
Thus we come to the Collect placed in the 1552 Prayer Book which has remained the Anglican Collect for St Andrew's Day since then. This reads:
"Almighty God, who didst give such grace unto thy holy Apostle Saint Andrew, that he readily obeyed the calling of thy Son Jesus Christ, and followed him without delay: Grant unto us all, that we, being called by thy holy word, may forthwith give up ourselves obediently to fulfil thy holy commandments; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Here the foundation for the petition in the relative clause ("who didst give.") is certainly scriptural, found in Matthew 4:18-10 & John 1:35-43.
In the Anglican Communion St Andrewstide has long been associated with intercession for foreign missions.
Since circa 750 St Andrew has been regarded as the patron saint of Scotland.
For all of us, St Andrew's Day is first and foremost a day of to pray that we shall be as ready to obey the call of the Lord as was Andrew.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
If Archbishop Cranmer had used the Collect for St Andrew's Day in the Latin Sarum Missal (which had been used for many years in Ecclesia Anglicana) he would have translated it something like this:
"We humbly implore thy Majesty, O Lord, that as the blessed Apostle Andrew appeared on earth as a preacher and ruler of the Church, so he may be for us a perpetual intercessor with thee in heaven. Though Christ our Lord."
But this Collect was not used because the Reformed Church of England had set aside the medieval practice of asking for the intercession of saints.
Instead, for the first Book of the Common Prayer (1549) either Cranmer or a colleague provided this Collect:
"Almighty God, which hast given such grace to thy Apostle saint Andrew, that he counted the sharp and painful death of the cross to be an high honour, and a great glory: Grant us to take and esteem all troubles and adversities which shall come unto us for thy sake, as things profitable to us for the obtaining of everlasting life: through Jesus Christ our Lord."
But this Collect was rejected and a new one provided for the second edition of The Book of Common Prayer in 1552. Why? Because the foundation ( established in the relative clause, "which hast given.") was recognized to be a legend and not either a sure fact of history or a sound doctrine of the sacred Scriptures. We do not know for sure how Andrew died but a prominent legend states that he was martyred at Patras in Achaia in AD 60 on a cross shaped like a capital X. [See also Eusebius, Book 3. i.1]
By 1552 Cranmer was insistent that the basis of any petition to the Lord our God through Christ the Saviour must be on a sure biblical foundation.
Thus we come to the Collect placed in the 1552 Prayer Book which has remained the Anglican Collect for St Andrew's Day since then. This reads:
"Almighty God, who didst give such grace unto thy holy Apostle Saint Andrew, that he readily obeyed the calling of thy Son Jesus Christ, and followed him without delay: Grant unto us all, that we, being called by thy holy word, may forthwith give up ourselves obediently to fulfil thy holy commandments; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Here the foundation for the petition in the relative clause ("who didst give.") is certainly scriptural, found in Matthew 4:18-10 & John 1:35-43.
In the Anglican Communion St Andrewstide has long been associated with intercession for foreign missions.
Since circa 750 St Andrew has been regarded as the patron saint of Scotland.
For all of us, St Andrew's Day is first and foremost a day of to pray that we shall be as ready to obey the call of the Lord as was Andrew.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Thanksgiving Day 2002 (Thursday)
To the ADELPHOI in the USA
Greetings.
Have a great day and holiday -- but in a Christian sense!
We are all very aware that one daily task of the Church of God is to adore, glorify, praise and thank the Lord on behalf of the whole of the created order.
As the People of God we have been given minds to think, hearts to feel and wills to act. We are made in the image and after the likeness of the Lord, the Creator, and thus are uniquely placed as members of both the old creation (Genesis 1) and by grace members of the new creation (Rev 21-22) to speak out on behalf of all creatures (except the angels who can speak for
themselves) the thanksgiving of the whole creation to its Creator.
The Daily Office(s) of the Church of God has always been seen as not merely the prayer of the Church as Church, but the prayer of the Church as the priest of creation, representing the whole order.
On THANKSGIVING DAY the Church of God in the USA is surely called to exercise this priestly ministry with special joy and divine efficacy as She thanks God not only for her own receipt of blessings but also for the varied harvests of provision of food and clothing, shelter and providences that He provides for all men.
If there is any nation upon earth that has reason to be thankful and to express that thanksgiving to Almighty God the Father it is the United States of America.
Let THANKSGIVING DAY be more than feasting, revelling and sporting. Let it be what it was intended to be when instituted, and may the Church of God fulfil her priestly ministry of uttering & expressing thanksgiving and making intercession for all, including enemies!
We shall be with you in spirit in Great Britain!
See the BCP 1928 for Collect & readings for Thanksgiving Day.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Greetings.
Have a great day and holiday -- but in a Christian sense!
We are all very aware that one daily task of the Church of God is to adore, glorify, praise and thank the Lord on behalf of the whole of the created order.
As the People of God we have been given minds to think, hearts to feel and wills to act. We are made in the image and after the likeness of the Lord, the Creator, and thus are uniquely placed as members of both the old creation (Genesis 1) and by grace members of the new creation (Rev 21-22) to speak out on behalf of all creatures (except the angels who can speak for
themselves) the thanksgiving of the whole creation to its Creator.
The Daily Office(s) of the Church of God has always been seen as not merely the prayer of the Church as Church, but the prayer of the Church as the priest of creation, representing the whole order.
On THANKSGIVING DAY the Church of God in the USA is surely called to exercise this priestly ministry with special joy and divine efficacy as She thanks God not only for her own receipt of blessings but also for the varied harvests of provision of food and clothing, shelter and providences that He provides for all men.
If there is any nation upon earth that has reason to be thankful and to express that thanksgiving to Almighty God the Father it is the United States of America.
Let THANKSGIVING DAY be more than feasting, revelling and sporting. Let it be what it was intended to be when instituted, and may the Church of God fulfil her priestly ministry of uttering & expressing thanksgiving and making intercession for all, including enemies!
We shall be with you in spirit in Great Britain!
See the BCP 1928 for Collect & readings for Thanksgiving Day.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Monday, November 25, 2002
In Thy Faith and Fear
(I wrote this back in 1993/4 for Trinity Seminary in Pittsburgh and I have recently found it and a friend scanned it! I hope you find it has something to say to modern worship....) -- Peter Toon
Apparently few Christians today are convinced that "the fear of God," so important to the Anglican Reformation and its liturgy, is a necessary or legitimate ingredient of genuine spirituality. Some clergy have reprimanded me for claiming that it is part of authentic Christianity. Usually they quote St. John, who said "Perfect love casts out fear" (7 John 4:18) or Jesus, who said "Fear not" (Luke 5:10).
By "fear" they understand the emotion that reduces one to uneasiness, anxiety, insecurity, and immobility. Surely (they reason) the God who is love does not want to reduce His creatures to such a state. He is not like the stern Victorian father whose arrival makes his child nervous, worried, and frightened. He is like the father whose arrival makes his child happy, contented, and expectant.
The Christian concept
The Christian concept is not "fear" but "filial fear" (happily "filial" applies to female and male). This fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit. As the Spirit of the Messiah, He is the Spirit of "the fear of the Lord," for the Messiah delights "in the fear of the Lord" (see Isaiah 11:2-3). As the Spirit of Christ, He causes believers to cry out "Abba, Father." Thus the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the fear of God and of our adoption by God.
The best way to get people to understand the "fear of the Lord" is by studying the incidents where God creates "fear," such as Jacob's experience at Bethel in Genesis 28:17. A general definition would go something like this (the second sentence in each section shows the intensification of fear in the new covenant).
First, fear is the sense of dread and awe felt by the creature (made in God's image and after His likeness) before the majesty of the holy God, the eternal Creator. When God is also known as a Holy Trinity of Persons, fear is more profound.
Second, it is the sense of fear felt by a guilty sinner before God the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-pure Judge, whose holiness rejects and punishes sin. When God is also known as the Incarnate Son, who bore the wrath of the holy God against sin for sinners, fear is intensified by a great sense of unworthiness and gratitude.
Third, it is a sense of profound respect and reverence for God's self-revelation, will, and law and a fear of displeasing Him by being irreverent, disobedient, and selfish, and thus it leads to glad submission to Him and His will. When God is also known as revealed in Jesus Christ, who perfectly obeyed His Father's will on behalf of sinners, there is a greater feeling of reverence, respect, awe, and determination to do the will of God freely and gladly.
Therefore this filial fear is the very foundation from which, and the very atmosphere in which, love, joy, faith, hope, worship, and freedom as fruit or gifts of the Spirit of Christ function best. Filial fear is the right attitude of a believing sinner who has been placed in a right relation with God through the saving work of Jesus Christ.
Without filial fear it is easy to cheapen the grace of God, to minimize duty to God and the neighbor, and to diminish the glorious attributes and transcendence of the eternal God who is the Lord our God.
Biblical background
Those who insist that "the fear of God" belongs to the old covenant and has no place in the new covenant have to avoid a range of texts in the New Testament.
Jesus said, for example, "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him" (Luke 12:4 5). After the death of Ananias and Sapphira we learn that "great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events" (Acts 5:11), for "it is a dreadful [fearful] thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). Then, in Revelation, the angel proclaims: "Fear God and give him the glory" (Revelation 14:7). This is followed by a voice from God's throne that says, "Praise our God all you his servants, you who fear him, both small and great!" (19:5).
This positive meaning of fear is also found in great richness in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs. Here to fear the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom but also the hallmark of genuine piety, devotion, and religion. It is a dread, a reverence, a profound respect for the living God who has revealed Himself. This godly fear becomes the basis of ready obedience to God's law and of walking in His ways. Thus the command to fear God supports the command to trust, obey, love, and worship Him.
The Book of Common Prayer
If we go back to the sixteenth cen tury we find that for both Protestants and Catholics the "fear of God" was a basic emotion of the Christian life and a necessary ingredient of authentic spirituality. The affection or emotion of godly fear is certainly fundamental to the spirituality set forth and encouraged by the English Book of Common Prayer of 1662.
The Catechism in the Prayer Book explains "my duty towards God" as "to believe in him, to fear him, and to love him, with all my mind, with all my soul and with all my strength." At confirmation the bishop prays for the candidates in these words: "Fill them, O Lord, with the spirit of thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen."
In the Litany the Church prays that "it may please thee to give us an heart to love and dread thee" and that God would rule the sovereign's heart in "thy faith, fear and love." In the marriage rite the first cause given for the institution of matrimony is "the procreation of children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord and to the praise of his holy name."
The Collect for the Second Sunday after Trinity begins: "O Lord, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy steadfast fear and love . . .". And in the Order for the administration of the Lord's Supper the priest praises God for the faithful departed: "We bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear." In the same prayer he has already asked God that the assembled congregation "with meek heart and due reverence" may hear and receive the divine Word.
Obviously, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and the other theologians who worked on the Book of Common Prayer felt no tension between the godly affections of fear and love. In fact, as the sermons and treatises of that period indicate, clergy were well aware of the variety of meanings of the word "fear" in the Bible. However, they believed that there is a right and appropriate use of fear as a necessary affection of the soul as it comes before God in the name of Jesus Christ.
They knew something that we in a generation of instancy and of familiarity seem to have forgotten. They knew that a profound reverence and dread of the eternal, infinite, holy God who is our Creator, Redeemer, and Judge, is the very foundation of our true spiritual worship, service, love, and obedience. While He has united himself to us by the Incarnation, and while He bids us to come boldly to Him through Jesus, He still expects us to come to Him in holy dread and reverence, always aware of who He is and what we are.
Some would argue that one weakness of both modern Anglican and Roman Catholic liturgies, and especially of charismatic services, is that the emotion of godly fear is often minimized, marginalized, or even eliminated altogether. Though part of the problem is the liturgical rites themselves, often those who preside believe that to be joyful in the Lord a believer must not have any feelings of dread before God.
I do not suggest that they reject godly fear, but that they do not see that this emotion of the regenerate soul ought to develop in worship. They have simply absorbed the modern view that fear belongs to the old and not to the new covenant.
Conclusion
If godly fear is a genuine part of authentic Christian spirituality, we need to ask whether our piety and worship allows for the proper exercise of godly fear.
My own conviction is that godly fear is a genuinely Christian emotion and that we can and must recover it in our spirituality and worship, without losing our sense of charismatic power and joy. For Anglicans the use of the Book of Common Prayer might help in the recovery of the sense of fear, awe, and dread before the LORD, the living God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Apparently few Christians today are convinced that "the fear of God," so important to the Anglican Reformation and its liturgy, is a necessary or legitimate ingredient of genuine spirituality. Some clergy have reprimanded me for claiming that it is part of authentic Christianity. Usually they quote St. John, who said "Perfect love casts out fear" (7 John 4:18) or Jesus, who said "Fear not" (Luke 5:10).
By "fear" they understand the emotion that reduces one to uneasiness, anxiety, insecurity, and immobility. Surely (they reason) the God who is love does not want to reduce His creatures to such a state. He is not like the stern Victorian father whose arrival makes his child nervous, worried, and frightened. He is like the father whose arrival makes his child happy, contented, and expectant.
The Christian concept
The Christian concept is not "fear" but "filial fear" (happily "filial" applies to female and male). This fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit. As the Spirit of the Messiah, He is the Spirit of "the fear of the Lord," for the Messiah delights "in the fear of the Lord" (see Isaiah 11:2-3). As the Spirit of Christ, He causes believers to cry out "Abba, Father." Thus the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the fear of God and of our adoption by God.
The best way to get people to understand the "fear of the Lord" is by studying the incidents where God creates "fear," such as Jacob's experience at Bethel in Genesis 28:17. A general definition would go something like this (the second sentence in each section shows the intensification of fear in the new covenant).
First, fear is the sense of dread and awe felt by the creature (made in God's image and after His likeness) before the majesty of the holy God, the eternal Creator. When God is also known as a Holy Trinity of Persons, fear is more profound.
Second, it is the sense of fear felt by a guilty sinner before God the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-pure Judge, whose holiness rejects and punishes sin. When God is also known as the Incarnate Son, who bore the wrath of the holy God against sin for sinners, fear is intensified by a great sense of unworthiness and gratitude.
Third, it is a sense of profound respect and reverence for God's self-revelation, will, and law and a fear of displeasing Him by being irreverent, disobedient, and selfish, and thus it leads to glad submission to Him and His will. When God is also known as revealed in Jesus Christ, who perfectly obeyed His Father's will on behalf of sinners, there is a greater feeling of reverence, respect, awe, and determination to do the will of God freely and gladly.
Therefore this filial fear is the very foundation from which, and the very atmosphere in which, love, joy, faith, hope, worship, and freedom as fruit or gifts of the Spirit of Christ function best. Filial fear is the right attitude of a believing sinner who has been placed in a right relation with God through the saving work of Jesus Christ.
Without filial fear it is easy to cheapen the grace of God, to minimize duty to God and the neighbor, and to diminish the glorious attributes and transcendence of the eternal God who is the Lord our God.
Biblical background
Those who insist that "the fear of God" belongs to the old covenant and has no place in the new covenant have to avoid a range of texts in the New Testament.
Jesus said, for example, "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him" (Luke 12:4 5). After the death of Ananias and Sapphira we learn that "great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events" (Acts 5:11), for "it is a dreadful [fearful] thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). Then, in Revelation, the angel proclaims: "Fear God and give him the glory" (Revelation 14:7). This is followed by a voice from God's throne that says, "Praise our God all you his servants, you who fear him, both small and great!" (19:5).
This positive meaning of fear is also found in great richness in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs. Here to fear the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom but also the hallmark of genuine piety, devotion, and religion. It is a dread, a reverence, a profound respect for the living God who has revealed Himself. This godly fear becomes the basis of ready obedience to God's law and of walking in His ways. Thus the command to fear God supports the command to trust, obey, love, and worship Him.
The Book of Common Prayer
If we go back to the sixteenth cen tury we find that for both Protestants and Catholics the "fear of God" was a basic emotion of the Christian life and a necessary ingredient of authentic spirituality. The affection or emotion of godly fear is certainly fundamental to the spirituality set forth and encouraged by the English Book of Common Prayer of 1662.
The Catechism in the Prayer Book explains "my duty towards God" as "to believe in him, to fear him, and to love him, with all my mind, with all my soul and with all my strength." At confirmation the bishop prays for the candidates in these words: "Fill them, O Lord, with the spirit of thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen."
In the Litany the Church prays that "it may please thee to give us an heart to love and dread thee" and that God would rule the sovereign's heart in "thy faith, fear and love." In the marriage rite the first cause given for the institution of matrimony is "the procreation of children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord and to the praise of his holy name."
The Collect for the Second Sunday after Trinity begins: "O Lord, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy steadfast fear and love . . .". And in the Order for the administration of the Lord's Supper the priest praises God for the faithful departed: "We bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear." In the same prayer he has already asked God that the assembled congregation "with meek heart and due reverence" may hear and receive the divine Word.
Obviously, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and the other theologians who worked on the Book of Common Prayer felt no tension between the godly affections of fear and love. In fact, as the sermons and treatises of that period indicate, clergy were well aware of the variety of meanings of the word "fear" in the Bible. However, they believed that there is a right and appropriate use of fear as a necessary affection of the soul as it comes before God in the name of Jesus Christ.
They knew something that we in a generation of instancy and of familiarity seem to have forgotten. They knew that a profound reverence and dread of the eternal, infinite, holy God who is our Creator, Redeemer, and Judge, is the very foundation of our true spiritual worship, service, love, and obedience. While He has united himself to us by the Incarnation, and while He bids us to come boldly to Him through Jesus, He still expects us to come to Him in holy dread and reverence, always aware of who He is and what we are.
Some would argue that one weakness of both modern Anglican and Roman Catholic liturgies, and especially of charismatic services, is that the emotion of godly fear is often minimized, marginalized, or even eliminated altogether. Though part of the problem is the liturgical rites themselves, often those who preside believe that to be joyful in the Lord a believer must not have any feelings of dread before God.
I do not suggest that they reject godly fear, but that they do not see that this emotion of the regenerate soul ought to develop in worship. They have simply absorbed the modern view that fear belongs to the old and not to the new covenant.
Conclusion
If godly fear is a genuine part of authentic Christian spirituality, we need to ask whether our piety and worship allows for the proper exercise of godly fear.
My own conviction is that godly fear is a genuinely Christian emotion and that we can and must recover it in our spirituality and worship, without losing our sense of charismatic power and joy. For Anglicans the use of the Book of Common Prayer might help in the recovery of the sense of fear, awe, and dread before the LORD, the living God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Saturday, November 23, 2002
Community relations, Theism & the Uniqueness of Christianity
a meditation to inspire better meditations
In Britain and elsewhere in order to achieve good community relations in cities and towns the Christian Church seems often to be ready to minimise its message and to leave out of it the distinctive content, the cutting edge.
Judaism, Christianity & Islam agree that God's purpose for man as his Creator is:
1. That his distinctive role in the order of creation is to develop his spiritual faculties of intellect, will and love , and cause his bodily nature to reflect God's glory.
2. That his spirituality is fulfilled only in self-conscious communion with God, which is the supreme glory & final end of his existence.
3. That this communion is to be everlasting for he is created for immortality wherein alone his potentialities can be realized.
4. That his noblest activity is adoration and praise of God wherein he fulfils his own nature as being that of a creature made in the image and after the likeness of God.
To these four propositions Christians very importantly and necessarily add:
That God's purpose for every man is that he should become like Christ, by being united with Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the relation to God the Father.
This is to say that what distinguishes Christianity from other religions is the belief that the Creator became man in one, specific figure in history. Let us unpack this assertion.
"The one, totally new thing which Christianity brought into the world was the belief, hammered out over the first four-and-a-half centuries of its existence, that in Jesus of Nazareth the true and living God had been living a genuine human life.
Other religions had gods walk the earth incognito, or had proclaimed the divinisation of some hero or sage. Christianity alone took a historical person and said, 'Here in this human personality, with all the limitations and sufferings of our human condition, was the eternal God, the Cause and Origin of all that is.' As defined in all its classical rigour (in the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils) this is the unique feature of the Christian religion, its only valid claim to separate existence.
A God of goodness, a Creator who cares, Christianity shares with Judaism and philosophical theism. A man who truly reflects the nature of the divine is no new thing to the Hindu or the Baha'i. A divinely inspired prophet, even one miraculously born, is acceptable to Islam. The Spirit of God indwelling men and guiding and strengthening their lives is a religious commonplace. Divine food received in a sacramental meal is Zoroastrian; ritual washings and initiation rites are found universally. Islam holds fast to judgment, heaven and hell; Judaism to repentance, amendment, and God's merciful pardon.
At every point accommodation is possible save at this one: this unique claim about Jesus, with its undergirding in the doctrine of the Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity. If this goes then the end of Christianity as an independent entity cannot be indefinitely delayed. No Incarnation, No Christianity."
Obviously this message has to be proclaimed graciously and set in the context of good works which glorify God. But if it is left out for fear of offending then while community relations may improve (questionably) the march of Islam especially will continue unabated for Muslims have learned how to use human rights, government subsidies and liberal and nominal Christianity to press ahead with their expansion.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
In Britain and elsewhere in order to achieve good community relations in cities and towns the Christian Church seems often to be ready to minimise its message and to leave out of it the distinctive content, the cutting edge.
Judaism, Christianity & Islam agree that God's purpose for man as his Creator is:
1. That his distinctive role in the order of creation is to develop his spiritual faculties of intellect, will and love , and cause his bodily nature to reflect God's glory.
2. That his spirituality is fulfilled only in self-conscious communion with God, which is the supreme glory & final end of his existence.
3. That this communion is to be everlasting for he is created for immortality wherein alone his potentialities can be realized.
4. That his noblest activity is adoration and praise of God wherein he fulfils his own nature as being that of a creature made in the image and after the likeness of God.
To these four propositions Christians very importantly and necessarily add:
That God's purpose for every man is that he should become like Christ, by being united with Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the relation to God the Father.
This is to say that what distinguishes Christianity from other religions is the belief that the Creator became man in one, specific figure in history. Let us unpack this assertion.
"The one, totally new thing which Christianity brought into the world was the belief, hammered out over the first four-and-a-half centuries of its existence, that in Jesus of Nazareth the true and living God had been living a genuine human life.
Other religions had gods walk the earth incognito, or had proclaimed the divinisation of some hero or sage. Christianity alone took a historical person and said, 'Here in this human personality, with all the limitations and sufferings of our human condition, was the eternal God, the Cause and Origin of all that is.' As defined in all its classical rigour (in the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils) this is the unique feature of the Christian religion, its only valid claim to separate existence.
A God of goodness, a Creator who cares, Christianity shares with Judaism and philosophical theism. A man who truly reflects the nature of the divine is no new thing to the Hindu or the Baha'i. A divinely inspired prophet, even one miraculously born, is acceptable to Islam. The Spirit of God indwelling men and guiding and strengthening their lives is a religious commonplace. Divine food received in a sacramental meal is Zoroastrian; ritual washings and initiation rites are found universally. Islam holds fast to judgment, heaven and hell; Judaism to repentance, amendment, and God's merciful pardon.
At every point accommodation is possible save at this one: this unique claim about Jesus, with its undergirding in the doctrine of the Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity. If this goes then the end of Christianity as an independent entity cannot be indefinitely delayed. No Incarnation, No Christianity."
Obviously this message has to be proclaimed graciously and set in the context of good works which glorify God. But if it is left out for fear of offending then while community relations may improve (questionably) the march of Islam especially will continue unabated for Muslims have learned how to use human rights, government subsidies and liberal and nominal Christianity to press ahead with their expansion.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
A D V E N T
The season of Advent starts on the first Sunday of December and this is also the beginning of the Christian Year.
Let us use the letters of the word "Advent" as an aid to reflect upon this four-week season of watching and preparation.
A points to ARRIVAL.
Advent ends with the celebration of the first Eucharist/Mass/Holy Communion of Christmas. Thus Advent is all about preparation for the arrival of the Incarnate Son of God, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Bethlehem. Although the Incarnation is a past event and has occurred, it is yet to come in liturgical time. Thus the people of God prepare themselves during the four weeks to celebrate the arrival of the Saviour. At the same time as they look forward in liturgical time to Christmas, they look forward in real time to the arrival of the same Incarnate Son of God from heaven to judge the living and the dead. They exercise Christian hope as they watch and pray and keep themselves in readiness to greet the arrival of the Lord of glory.
D points to the Day of the Lord.
The arrival in real, chronological time on earth in glory of the once crucified and now exalted Lord Jesus Christ in order to judge the nations will be "the Day of the Lord," of which the prophets of the Old Testament often spoke. This Day will be a day of judgment and pain for the disobedient and of joy and salvation to the faithful. Jesus taught us to watch and pray and to be prepared!
V points to "Venite, exultemus Domino."
Advent is a time especially for the people of God to say one to another in the language of the Psalter, " Venite, O come, let us sing unto the Lord" and "O come, let us worship and fall down" (Ps.95 etc.). They prepare to kneel at the manger wherein lies the infant, who is the Son of God incarnate, and with the angels to worship the One who is born King of the Jews and Lord of all nations. " Venite, O come let us adore him, Christ the Lord." At the same time they also prepare to worship the Lord Jesus Christ at his Second Coming and to confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father - O come let us worship and fall down before him.
E points to Encouragement and Edification.
The duty of pastors of Christ's flock during the season of Advent is to encourage the lambs and sheep of Christ to prepare in liturgical time for the First Advent and in real time for the Second Advent. They are to teach God's people from the Scriptures the truth concerning Jesus of Nazareth, his relation to the Father, his relation to the Jewish people, and his relation to the world. In so doing they are to edify the Body of Christ and build up its members in the most holy faith. Likewise the members themselves are to encourage and edify one another so that their joint celebration on Christmas Day is such as to be worthy of the event being remembered.
N points to the Nativity of Jesus, Son of Mary
In Christian doctrine Mary is given a unique title, Theotokos. This comes into English via the Latin as "Mother of God" but the Greek is better rendered, "Birth-Giver of God." The baby born from the holy womb of Mary, the Virgin, was truly a human baby. At the same time this infant was a unique boy for he was much more than he appeared to be to human eyes. Only the eyes of faith could recognize his true identity at his Nativity. He was certainly One Person, but he had two natures. One nature, the human, he received from Mary, but the other nature, the divine, he possessed from all eternity as the eternal Son of the Father. He was Immanuel, "God with us."
T points to Transcendence
It is possible so to treat the biblical accounts of the Nativity (Matthew 1 & Luke 1-2) that we treat them as merely and only belonging to the horizontal plane. This is very obvious in much of the commercial use of the Christmas story and in the over sentimental use of the crib and of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, the shepherds and animals therein. In the Nativity, and events surrounding It, the transcendent world enters the world of space and time as God visits and redeems his people.
The Collect for Advent.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Let us use the letters of the word "Advent" as an aid to reflect upon this four-week season of watching and preparation.
A points to ARRIVAL.
Advent ends with the celebration of the first Eucharist/Mass/Holy Communion of Christmas. Thus Advent is all about preparation for the arrival of the Incarnate Son of God, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Bethlehem. Although the Incarnation is a past event and has occurred, it is yet to come in liturgical time. Thus the people of God prepare themselves during the four weeks to celebrate the arrival of the Saviour. At the same time as they look forward in liturgical time to Christmas, they look forward in real time to the arrival of the same Incarnate Son of God from heaven to judge the living and the dead. They exercise Christian hope as they watch and pray and keep themselves in readiness to greet the arrival of the Lord of glory.
D points to the Day of the Lord.
The arrival in real, chronological time on earth in glory of the once crucified and now exalted Lord Jesus Christ in order to judge the nations will be "the Day of the Lord," of which the prophets of the Old Testament often spoke. This Day will be a day of judgment and pain for the disobedient and of joy and salvation to the faithful. Jesus taught us to watch and pray and to be prepared!
V points to "Venite, exultemus Domino."
Advent is a time especially for the people of God to say one to another in the language of the Psalter, " Venite, O come, let us sing unto the Lord" and "O come, let us worship and fall down" (Ps.95 etc.). They prepare to kneel at the manger wherein lies the infant, who is the Son of God incarnate, and with the angels to worship the One who is born King of the Jews and Lord of all nations. " Venite, O come let us adore him, Christ the Lord." At the same time they also prepare to worship the Lord Jesus Christ at his Second Coming and to confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father - O come let us worship and fall down before him.
E points to Encouragement and Edification.
The duty of pastors of Christ's flock during the season of Advent is to encourage the lambs and sheep of Christ to prepare in liturgical time for the First Advent and in real time for the Second Advent. They are to teach God's people from the Scriptures the truth concerning Jesus of Nazareth, his relation to the Father, his relation to the Jewish people, and his relation to the world. In so doing they are to edify the Body of Christ and build up its members in the most holy faith. Likewise the members themselves are to encourage and edify one another so that their joint celebration on Christmas Day is such as to be worthy of the event being remembered.
N points to the Nativity of Jesus, Son of Mary
In Christian doctrine Mary is given a unique title, Theotokos. This comes into English via the Latin as "Mother of God" but the Greek is better rendered, "Birth-Giver of God." The baby born from the holy womb of Mary, the Virgin, was truly a human baby. At the same time this infant was a unique boy for he was much more than he appeared to be to human eyes. Only the eyes of faith could recognize his true identity at his Nativity. He was certainly One Person, but he had two natures. One nature, the human, he received from Mary, but the other nature, the divine, he possessed from all eternity as the eternal Son of the Father. He was Immanuel, "God with us."
T points to Transcendence
It is possible so to treat the biblical accounts of the Nativity (Matthew 1 & Luke 1-2) that we treat them as merely and only belonging to the horizontal plane. This is very obvious in much of the commercial use of the Christmas story and in the over sentimental use of the crib and of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, the shepherds and animals therein. In the Nativity, and events surrounding It, the transcendent world enters the world of space and time as God visits and redeems his people.
The Collect for Advent.
Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son. Jesus Christ, came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the living and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and for ever. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Stir Up Sunday: The Sunday next before Advent
This Collect in The Book of Common Prayer (1662, 1928, 1960) is a free translation by Archbishop Cranmer from the Latin original for this Sunday in the Gregorian Sacramentary & "The Use of Sarum."
"Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
One of the great spiritual diseases is lethargy. We remain content with where we are on the highway of holiness and in the climbing on Mount Zion. There is always tomorrow to strive the more; today we can relax! We rest as pilgrims and do not seek to conquer more of the path in front of us.
It is all too easy not to press on towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:13-14).
So the major petition of this Collect is that God the Father will cause the Holy Ghost to stir up our lazy and inactive wills and to rouse us from the slumber of complacency. Yet, as we know, a fire when stirred does not always blaze and a sleeper, when roused, does not always get up! In the final analysis we are given a measure of freedom by our Creator so that we can respond to his call in freedom and love. This said, it is also true to say that our wills in and of themselves need divine inspiration and assistance in order to be directed towards the glorifying of God in good works.
Thus there must be stirring up and there must be wholehearted cooperation by ourselves to the motions of the Spirit in our souls.
The idea of plenteous reward for good works freely and lovingly done is a scriptural doctrine. "Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Galatians 6:9); "Be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58). Of course, the rewards are at the end of the age and pertain to the life of the world to come.
We offer this prayer not on the basis of our own merits and achievements (assuming we have any!) but through the one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, in and through whom there will be reward for the faithful in the age to come.
Finally, what would this Collect have been like if Cranmer had translated it fairly literally.
"Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, more readily following after the effect of thy divine working, may obtain from thy fatherly goodness larger assistances [of grace]. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
We may note that "the effect of thy divine working" and "the fruit of good works" are not the same thing, However, there is an intimate connection between them and both Collects fall within related biblical themes and theology. Probably Cranmer went the way he did was to preserve good sounding English for all the Collects were intended to be read aloud.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
"Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
One of the great spiritual diseases is lethargy. We remain content with where we are on the highway of holiness and in the climbing on Mount Zion. There is always tomorrow to strive the more; today we can relax! We rest as pilgrims and do not seek to conquer more of the path in front of us.
It is all too easy not to press on towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:13-14).
So the major petition of this Collect is that God the Father will cause the Holy Ghost to stir up our lazy and inactive wills and to rouse us from the slumber of complacency. Yet, as we know, a fire when stirred does not always blaze and a sleeper, when roused, does not always get up! In the final analysis we are given a measure of freedom by our Creator so that we can respond to his call in freedom and love. This said, it is also true to say that our wills in and of themselves need divine inspiration and assistance in order to be directed towards the glorifying of God in good works.
Thus there must be stirring up and there must be wholehearted cooperation by ourselves to the motions of the Spirit in our souls.
The idea of plenteous reward for good works freely and lovingly done is a scriptural doctrine. "Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Galatians 6:9); "Be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58). Of course, the rewards are at the end of the age and pertain to the life of the world to come.
We offer this prayer not on the basis of our own merits and achievements (assuming we have any!) but through the one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, in and through whom there will be reward for the faithful in the age to come.
Finally, what would this Collect have been like if Cranmer had translated it fairly literally.
"Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, more readily following after the effect of thy divine working, may obtain from thy fatherly goodness larger assistances [of grace]. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
We may note that "the effect of thy divine working" and "the fruit of good works" are not the same thing, However, there is an intimate connection between them and both Collects fall within related biblical themes and theology. Probably Cranmer went the way he did was to preserve good sounding English for all the Collects were intended to be read aloud.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Sunday, November 17, 2002
English Prayers & Collects and the original Deus Qui
Adelphoi,
My last meditation upon the JEWELLED MINIATURES of Anglican Liturgy
The English language in its high flexibility has the ability to form relative clauses, an asset not shared by other languages as diverse as Welsh and Hebrew. This confers upon English both convenience and accuracy of expression as well as rhetorical power in the construction of long sentences. It can be well studied in The Book of Common Prayer (1549 & 1662 & USA 1928) where it is embodied in the English (Anglican) language of prayer for it occurs in numerous Collects and Prayers. We owe this presence to the hand of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who perfected in English translation the style [Deus qui] he found in many of the Latin originals with which he worked.
Of the 45 Collects that use the relative clause in the The Book of the Common Prayer (1549), there was already such a clause in the original Latin of 36 of them. Further, Cranmer made use of the relative clause in no less than seven of the Collects for Saint's Days, written for the first Prayer Book. And of the total of 82 Collects in the BCP there is no relative clause in 36 of them (including a blank run from Trinity XIV to Trinity XXII), leaving 46 of them with it.
The Prayer of Consecration
This most attractive and interesting (perhaps unique) use and exploitation of the relative clause on a big scale is in the Prayer of Consecration in the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper (1552 & 1662 England; cf. also 1928 USA). Here the opening address to & invocation of God ("Almighty God, our heavenly Father") is followed not by one relative clause but by two, with one inside the other: "which of thy tender mercy didst give." and "who by his one oblation of himself." And on the wings of these two relative clauses the single, vast and profound sentence soars to its first exclamatory climax, "Hear us, O merciful Father." And, importantly, it is in another relative clause ("who in the same night that he was betrayed.") that the actual words of consecration are framed and thus the Words of Institution remain part of the Consecration Prayer.
If Cranmer's Prayer is compared with the Latin prayer in the medieval Sarum Missal, we find that the formula of consecration there is in a subordinate clause, "who, the day before he suffered, took bread"; but if we may dare say so, the whole exordium is less attractively constructed in Latin than in Cranmer's English.
It is sad that we must note that in modern Eucharistic Liturgies in English the architectural structure of the Prayer of Consecration has been demolished, usually with the removal of the first two relative pronouns & clauses. Instead of the people of God being reminded of what their God is to them and has done for them by use of carefully constructed relative clauses, the Deity himself is told by his creatures of what he has done for them (!!!), in words such as these: "You gave your only Son.." [which invites the response from Heaven, "Oh! Did I do so?"]
Reverence before God is greatly assisted by appropriate words.
Indeed, one of the many differences between the classic language of prayer in The Book of Common Prayer and the "contemporary language" in post 1970s Anglican liturgies is in the contrast of attitude in prayer as created by the form of words used. In the traditional idiom, language is stretched and poetically formed in order to produce reverence and awe before Almighty God who is the merciful One, while in the modern liturgical language it tends often to be used in a commonplace and pedestrian manner in order to make worshippers feel welcomed by and near unto God, present amongst them.
Taken over from the patristic, Latin idiom of prayer and developed by Cranmer, the use of the relative clause became one of the means used by the Anglican language of prayer to be reverent and humble before God while, at the same time, recognizing that in Christ Jesus and by divine revelation we have been brought near unto the Father and have by his design a duty to ask petitions of him that he will grant. Thus there is both a logical and a linguistic use of the relative clause. Its use is a means by which the worshippers point out to God in a suitably humble and reverent way that he has both the means and the propensity to grant the petition.
In the Communion Service the relative clause may be seen not only in the Prayer of Consecration but also in other places. The Collect for Purity begins:
"Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse." [Modern liturgies proceed to inform the omniscient God by saying "Almighty God to you all hearts are open and desires known.."]
It is there in the Absolution: "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him: pardon and deliver you from all your sins.."
And, of course, it is there in the Communion Service in many of the Collects used on Sundays and Saint's Days. Here are two examples from the many:
"Almighty and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy." [Trinity XII]
Almighty and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do grant unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee.." [Trinity XIII]
Contemporary Language of Prayer
A common way by which these traditional prayers/collects have been rendered into "contemporary English" is not by using the "You" form for the "Thou" but by abandoning the relative clause altogether. Thus we get, "Almighty God, you are always more ready to hear than we to pray." etc.
And sometimes when the use of the relative clause has been maintained in the contemporary English, the form of the verb has been wrong! This is seen in "The Book of Common Prayer for use in the Church in Wales" where not a few Collects have bad grammar. For example, "Almighty God, who has created the heavens and the earth." and "Almighty God, who shows to those who are in error the light of the truth."
In the address to God "Thou hast" should become "You have" and "Thou showest" should become "You show". In "O God, who have . . ." the subject of the verb "have" is "who." And "who" has become 2nd person because of the unstated antecedent "you," though the antecedent does not appear. [Examples such as "I who am your teacher tell you this" are awkward, but correct. Some of us may recall memorizing this principle: A relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender, number, and PERSON; it takes its case from its use in its own clause. On this basis, we at least have the tools with which to analyze and correct such bad grammar as "They led in the man WHOM we thought was the criminal" as well as the productions of careless liturgists.]
However, it is exceedingly good to be able to record that in 2002 the Vatican, which around 1970 pioneered the move into the most accessible and simple forms of the vernacular the translation of the Latin Mass, is calling for the restoration of the DEUS QUI, the relative clause, to prayers and collects in English where it is there already in the Latin originals! Let us hope that this is done correctly and sympathetically in the new Roman Collects & Prayers, and that Anglicans follow on.
(For more sophisticated discussion of this and related matters see the brilliant essay, "The Question of Style", by Ian Robinson in the book, "The Real Common Worship," edited by Peter Mullen from Edgeways Books, The Brynmill Press, Norfolk, IP20 0AS - ISBN 0 907839 67 3 --- sales@edgewaysbooks.com)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
My last meditation upon the JEWELLED MINIATURES of Anglican Liturgy
The English language in its high flexibility has the ability to form relative clauses, an asset not shared by other languages as diverse as Welsh and Hebrew. This confers upon English both convenience and accuracy of expression as well as rhetorical power in the construction of long sentences. It can be well studied in The Book of Common Prayer (1549 & 1662 & USA 1928) where it is embodied in the English (Anglican) language of prayer for it occurs in numerous Collects and Prayers. We owe this presence to the hand of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who perfected in English translation the style [Deus qui] he found in many of the Latin originals with which he worked.
Of the 45 Collects that use the relative clause in the The Book of the Common Prayer (1549), there was already such a clause in the original Latin of 36 of them. Further, Cranmer made use of the relative clause in no less than seven of the Collects for Saint's Days, written for the first Prayer Book. And of the total of 82 Collects in the BCP there is no relative clause in 36 of them (including a blank run from Trinity XIV to Trinity XXII), leaving 46 of them with it.
The Prayer of Consecration
This most attractive and interesting (perhaps unique) use and exploitation of the relative clause on a big scale is in the Prayer of Consecration in the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper (1552 & 1662 England; cf. also 1928 USA). Here the opening address to & invocation of God ("Almighty God, our heavenly Father") is followed not by one relative clause but by two, with one inside the other: "which of thy tender mercy didst give." and "who by his one oblation of himself." And on the wings of these two relative clauses the single, vast and profound sentence soars to its first exclamatory climax, "Hear us, O merciful Father." And, importantly, it is in another relative clause ("who in the same night that he was betrayed.") that the actual words of consecration are framed and thus the Words of Institution remain part of the Consecration Prayer.
If Cranmer's Prayer is compared with the Latin prayer in the medieval Sarum Missal, we find that the formula of consecration there is in a subordinate clause, "who, the day before he suffered, took bread"; but if we may dare say so, the whole exordium is less attractively constructed in Latin than in Cranmer's English.
It is sad that we must note that in modern Eucharistic Liturgies in English the architectural structure of the Prayer of Consecration has been demolished, usually with the removal of the first two relative pronouns & clauses. Instead of the people of God being reminded of what their God is to them and has done for them by use of carefully constructed relative clauses, the Deity himself is told by his creatures of what he has done for them (!!!), in words such as these: "You gave your only Son.." [which invites the response from Heaven, "Oh! Did I do so?"]
Reverence before God is greatly assisted by appropriate words.
Indeed, one of the many differences between the classic language of prayer in The Book of Common Prayer and the "contemporary language" in post 1970s Anglican liturgies is in the contrast of attitude in prayer as created by the form of words used. In the traditional idiom, language is stretched and poetically formed in order to produce reverence and awe before Almighty God who is the merciful One, while in the modern liturgical language it tends often to be used in a commonplace and pedestrian manner in order to make worshippers feel welcomed by and near unto God, present amongst them.
Taken over from the patristic, Latin idiom of prayer and developed by Cranmer, the use of the relative clause became one of the means used by the Anglican language of prayer to be reverent and humble before God while, at the same time, recognizing that in Christ Jesus and by divine revelation we have been brought near unto the Father and have by his design a duty to ask petitions of him that he will grant. Thus there is both a logical and a linguistic use of the relative clause. Its use is a means by which the worshippers point out to God in a suitably humble and reverent way that he has both the means and the propensity to grant the petition.
In the Communion Service the relative clause may be seen not only in the Prayer of Consecration but also in other places. The Collect for Purity begins:
"Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse." [Modern liturgies proceed to inform the omniscient God by saying "Almighty God to you all hearts are open and desires known.."]
It is there in the Absolution: "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him: pardon and deliver you from all your sins.."
And, of course, it is there in the Communion Service in many of the Collects used on Sundays and Saint's Days. Here are two examples from the many:
"Almighty and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy." [Trinity XII]
Almighty and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do grant unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee.." [Trinity XIII]
Contemporary Language of Prayer
A common way by which these traditional prayers/collects have been rendered into "contemporary English" is not by using the "You" form for the "Thou" but by abandoning the relative clause altogether. Thus we get, "Almighty God, you are always more ready to hear than we to pray." etc.
And sometimes when the use of the relative clause has been maintained in the contemporary English, the form of the verb has been wrong! This is seen in "The Book of Common Prayer for use in the Church in Wales" where not a few Collects have bad grammar. For example, "Almighty God, who has created the heavens and the earth." and "Almighty God, who shows to those who are in error the light of the truth."
In the address to God "Thou hast" should become "You have" and "Thou showest" should become "You show". In "O God, who have . . ." the subject of the verb "have" is "who." And "who" has become 2nd person because of the unstated antecedent "you," though the antecedent does not appear. [Examples such as "I who am your teacher tell you this" are awkward, but correct. Some of us may recall memorizing this principle: A relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender, number, and PERSON; it takes its case from its use in its own clause. On this basis, we at least have the tools with which to analyze and correct such bad grammar as "They led in the man WHOM we thought was the criminal" as well as the productions of careless liturgists.]
However, it is exceedingly good to be able to record that in 2002 the Vatican, which around 1970 pioneered the move into the most accessible and simple forms of the vernacular the translation of the Latin Mass, is calling for the restoration of the DEUS QUI, the relative clause, to prayers and collects in English where it is there already in the Latin originals! Let us hope that this is done correctly and sympathetically in the new Roman Collects & Prayers, and that Anglicans follow on.
(For more sophisticated discussion of this and related matters see the brilliant essay, "The Question of Style", by Ian Robinson in the book, "The Real Common Worship," edited by Peter Mullen from Edgeways Books, The Brynmill Press, Norfolk, IP20 0AS - ISBN 0 907839 67 3 --- sales@edgewaysbooks.com)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Saturday, November 16, 2002
The Church of England and Divorce
Adelphoi,
At a recent General Synod (Nov.2002), where it was decided to retain the requirement that clergy must wear appropriate vestments when taking church services [even when the parish requests that they wear regular clothing], it was also decided that it would now be possible, by the law of the Church, for divorcees to be married in church using the official marriage service of the Church of England. Only one bishop voted against and he is the sole "flying bishop" in the Synod.
It has been possible for divorcees to be married in church for a long time, but this has been because the C of E is an established church and her clergy are marriage officers of the state. Thus the latter have been able to take the marriage ceremony allowed by the civil law even if not allowed by church law. In doing so they were open to be disciplined by the bishop. Now the Church law moves by a big step towards reconcilation with the liberal State law.
Church law, ever since the 16th century, has forbidden the marriage of a divorced person in church; and in England annulments have not been officially given by the Church, only by the State and that rarely. What has been passed by the Synod is not on paper a free for all, although once implemented it will be very difficult indeed to say "no" to any couple for if the local minister has conscientous objections, another minister will be asked to do the job.
Thus the C of E once again follows the secularist way of the ECUSA and in so doing will very soon like the ECUSA be allowing the blessing of same-sex couples. The one seems inevitably to follow the other in a culture of rights, self-esteem and self-fulfilment, and lack of objective, moral standards. No fence can be erected now in the C of E against the blessing of gay marriage.
I predict that [liberal] evangelicals & catholics who once opposed women's ordination and then became advocates for it, and who now seem wholly to favour this new liberal measure of Synod concerning holy matrimony as "pastoral", will (like a growing number of USA liberal catholics & evangelicals) soon be calling for certain limited rights for same-sex couples in church -- not in 2003 but by 2007.
One friend wrote to me in these terms on hearing the news:
"I am guessing that the Church of England has abandoned any official, common, and enforceable discipline regarding marriage. As far as I can see, besides the conscience clause given as a sop to the scruples of dissenting clergy (meaningful only as a private matter, not with a backing from the Church in any teaching capacity), there is absolutely nothing to prevent any and every kind of remarriage. The whole body of the Church of England cannot be held to the disciplines that some of the parts might enact, with varying intensity, and the teaching seems to be irreversible.
"Life-long" now seems to mean that people can have a succession of lives. It also seems that "exceptional" cases are now the rule, given that there is no rule to give meaning to the exceptions. Additionally, it seems that every (civil) divorce is a de facto Church annulment. This was not the intent, but this is the result. Or if annulment does not even enter into the equation, then state decretals are all the Church needs (plus a personal plea convincing to the mind of a single cleric) to perform a marriage."
May the Lord have mercy upon all who are called Anglican & Episcopalian! The Mother Church has taken another huge step in abandoning the Faith of the reformed Catholic Ecclesia Anglicana!
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
At a recent General Synod (Nov.2002), where it was decided to retain the requirement that clergy must wear appropriate vestments when taking church services [even when the parish requests that they wear regular clothing], it was also decided that it would now be possible, by the law of the Church, for divorcees to be married in church using the official marriage service of the Church of England. Only one bishop voted against and he is the sole "flying bishop" in the Synod.
It has been possible for divorcees to be married in church for a long time, but this has been because the C of E is an established church and her clergy are marriage officers of the state. Thus the latter have been able to take the marriage ceremony allowed by the civil law even if not allowed by church law. In doing so they were open to be disciplined by the bishop. Now the Church law moves by a big step towards reconcilation with the liberal State law.
Church law, ever since the 16th century, has forbidden the marriage of a divorced person in church; and in England annulments have not been officially given by the Church, only by the State and that rarely. What has been passed by the Synod is not on paper a free for all, although once implemented it will be very difficult indeed to say "no" to any couple for if the local minister has conscientous objections, another minister will be asked to do the job.
Thus the C of E once again follows the secularist way of the ECUSA and in so doing will very soon like the ECUSA be allowing the blessing of same-sex couples. The one seems inevitably to follow the other in a culture of rights, self-esteem and self-fulfilment, and lack of objective, moral standards. No fence can be erected now in the C of E against the blessing of gay marriage.
I predict that [liberal] evangelicals & catholics who once opposed women's ordination and then became advocates for it, and who now seem wholly to favour this new liberal measure of Synod concerning holy matrimony as "pastoral", will (like a growing number of USA liberal catholics & evangelicals) soon be calling for certain limited rights for same-sex couples in church -- not in 2003 but by 2007.
One friend wrote to me in these terms on hearing the news:
"I am guessing that the Church of England has abandoned any official, common, and enforceable discipline regarding marriage. As far as I can see, besides the conscience clause given as a sop to the scruples of dissenting clergy (meaningful only as a private matter, not with a backing from the Church in any teaching capacity), there is absolutely nothing to prevent any and every kind of remarriage. The whole body of the Church of England cannot be held to the disciplines that some of the parts might enact, with varying intensity, and the teaching seems to be irreversible.
"Life-long" now seems to mean that people can have a succession of lives. It also seems that "exceptional" cases are now the rule, given that there is no rule to give meaning to the exceptions. Additionally, it seems that every (civil) divorce is a de facto Church annulment. This was not the intent, but this is the result. Or if annulment does not even enter into the equation, then state decretals are all the Church needs (plus a personal plea convincing to the mind of a single cleric) to perform a marriage."
May the Lord have mercy upon all who are called Anglican & Episcopalian! The Mother Church has taken another huge step in abandoning the Faith of the reformed Catholic Ecclesia Anglicana!
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)