THE EPIPHANY or The Manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles January 6
"O God, who by the leading of a star didst manifest thy only-begotten Son to the Gentiles: Mercifully grant, that we, which know thee now by faith may after this life have the fruition of thy glorious Godhead; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
[This Collect is to be used daily until the First Sunday after the Epiphany.]
Epistle: Ephesians 3:1-12
The Gospel: St Matthew 2:1-12
The magi were certainly non-Jews and thus as representatives of the Gentile peoples, they made the long pilgrimage to Bethlehem via Jerusalem probably from the country we now call Iraq. Their pilgrimage provides a model of the Christian pilgrimage through this life where we walk by faith until we are transported into the age to come where we walk by supernatural sight, the light of the exalted Lamb.
This Collect in its original Latin wording is based upon (a) the biblical narrative of the visit of the magi as recorded in Matthew 2; and (b) the thought that "we walk by faith and not by sight" on earth ( 2 Corinthians 5:7).
The translation in the BCP, however, does not bring out as clearly as possible, the second of these themes, the walking by faith now towards the future contemplation by sight in heaven. The petition in Latin may be more literally translated: "Mercifully grant that we, which know thee now by faith, may be led onwards until we come to gaze upon thy Exaltation [Majesty] by sight."
It seems that Archbishop Cranmer had in mind the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo and others, who spoke of the beatific vision in heaven as "the fruition of thy glorious Godhead." So he used this expression rather than literally translating the Latin before him. The translation provided above points to the same glorious conclusion as Augustine & Cranmer had in mind, but it picks up more clearly on the theme of "being led onwards" (in the case of the magi by a star and of ourselves by faith) and of "contemplation/gazing" (the magi gazed at the heavens and then upon the Only-Begotten Son Incarnate, while we shall see the glory of the Father in the face of the exalted Jesus Christ).
What this Collect prays for in Latin or in English is of course the important thing. The people of God make petition for divine assistance so that, after being faithful sojourners and pilgrims here on earth in this evil age, they will experience the full realization of Christian hope and see the Glory of the Father in the face of Jesus Christ in the glorious age to come. But we must first walk by faith in order later by grace to walk by sight!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Tuesday, December 31, 2002
C of E Shortfalls
Adelphoi,
So that you can see what is happening in the C of E here is a bulletin I got today, Dec 31, from the Diocese. Reductions such as this are being called for in most dioceses. Paid clergy are getting fewer. My own parish was classified a full time job until I came a year ago, when, to save money, it was made 0.5 in terms of stipend and time by the diocese. All clergy are paid the same from central funds and parishes send in money, according to their size and ability to pay, to the centre. The basic, full clergy stipend is about $25,000.00 plus a house and expenses of ministry.
£2-MILLION BUDGET SHORTFALL SPARKS REVIEW OF MINISTRY
A budget shortfall of £2-million, which could rise to £4-million over the next five years, has sparked a strategic review of ministry within the Lichfield Diocese. The review could lead to a reduction in the number of clergy deployed throughout the diocese and a change in the way clergy are used, but reports that the diocese intends to "scrap vicars" are misleading. Parochial clergy and local churches are at the heart of the Church of England's mission and purpose.
Each year, every parish is asked to pay an amount set by the diocese as their share of the diocesan budget. In recent years, some parishes have found it increasingly difficult to pay their share, and the diocese has been forced to eat into its reserves to meet its costs. Reserves are limited and the diocese can not afford to keep using its reserves to fund revenue costs.
Historically, parishes had to pay a much lower share of the diocesan budget than today, as the amount available from external sources, such as the Church Commissioners, has reduced, and costs, such as pensions for retired clergy, have increased.
Diocesan Secretary, David Taylor, said today: "Parishes are finding it more and more difficult to pay their share of the budget agreed by Diocesan Synod. Therefore, the Synod has decided to reduce what it will ask from parishes by £835,000 over the next seven years. Whilst we are looking to cut non-parochial costs and increase income, savings of this magnitude can only be made by reducing our biggest cost - stipendiary posts.
"The only alternative is for churchgoers to be far more realistic in their levels of giving in order to maintain, or even increase, clergy numbers across the diocese."
Small reductions in clergy numbers have already taken place where parishes have been merged, or where several parishes have had to share one vicar. But these have tended to happen as a result of natural vacancies.
Now, the diocese will hold a series of meetings in each of its deaneries - groups of churches in a town or similar district - to ask "what is the most effective way of 'doing church' in this area?" Local clergy and representatives of the laity will be asked to look at how the church is staffed in their area, and whether this is the most effective way of using clergy. The deaneries will be asked for suggestions as to where money can be saved.
David Taylor commented: "Reducing clergy numbers and re-organising parishes on the basis of when vacancies occur is not an effective way of maintaining and developing a mission-oriented Church. Despite an excellent team of staff and volunteers working on diocesan finances, we have a problem because more and more parishes can't afford what we are asking them to pay. Rather than wait until the problem develops into a crisis, we want to take action now, but we want the action we take to be strategic, so that we develop the diocese into an effective tool for mission.
"The local church is central to what the Church of England is. And parochial clergy are at the forefront of the church's mission. The process we are embarking upon is designed to protect these front-line clergy and provide the resources to equip them to fulfil their calling as God's ministers. However, we have to face up to the fact that clergy numbers could fall, and the way we use our clergy could change."
On Sunday 12th December every church in the diocese will play a taped message from the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Revd Keith Sutton, in which he will call the Diocese to prayer in the run up and during Lent. This will not be a time of asking God to provide money, but of listening to God to determine his will for the future shape of ministry in the Lichfield Diocese.
ENDS
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
So that you can see what is happening in the C of E here is a bulletin I got today, Dec 31, from the Diocese. Reductions such as this are being called for in most dioceses. Paid clergy are getting fewer. My own parish was classified a full time job until I came a year ago, when, to save money, it was made 0.5 in terms of stipend and time by the diocese. All clergy are paid the same from central funds and parishes send in money, according to their size and ability to pay, to the centre. The basic, full clergy stipend is about $25,000.00 plus a house and expenses of ministry.
£2-MILLION BUDGET SHORTFALL SPARKS REVIEW OF MINISTRY
A budget shortfall of £2-million, which could rise to £4-million over the next five years, has sparked a strategic review of ministry within the Lichfield Diocese. The review could lead to a reduction in the number of clergy deployed throughout the diocese and a change in the way clergy are used, but reports that the diocese intends to "scrap vicars" are misleading. Parochial clergy and local churches are at the heart of the Church of England's mission and purpose.
Each year, every parish is asked to pay an amount set by the diocese as their share of the diocesan budget. In recent years, some parishes have found it increasingly difficult to pay their share, and the diocese has been forced to eat into its reserves to meet its costs. Reserves are limited and the diocese can not afford to keep using its reserves to fund revenue costs.
Historically, parishes had to pay a much lower share of the diocesan budget than today, as the amount available from external sources, such as the Church Commissioners, has reduced, and costs, such as pensions for retired clergy, have increased.
Diocesan Secretary, David Taylor, said today: "Parishes are finding it more and more difficult to pay their share of the budget agreed by Diocesan Synod. Therefore, the Synod has decided to reduce what it will ask from parishes by £835,000 over the next seven years. Whilst we are looking to cut non-parochial costs and increase income, savings of this magnitude can only be made by reducing our biggest cost - stipendiary posts.
"The only alternative is for churchgoers to be far more realistic in their levels of giving in order to maintain, or even increase, clergy numbers across the diocese."
Small reductions in clergy numbers have already taken place where parishes have been merged, or where several parishes have had to share one vicar. But these have tended to happen as a result of natural vacancies.
Now, the diocese will hold a series of meetings in each of its deaneries - groups of churches in a town or similar district - to ask "what is the most effective way of 'doing church' in this area?" Local clergy and representatives of the laity will be asked to look at how the church is staffed in their area, and whether this is the most effective way of using clergy. The deaneries will be asked for suggestions as to where money can be saved.
David Taylor commented: "Reducing clergy numbers and re-organising parishes on the basis of when vacancies occur is not an effective way of maintaining and developing a mission-oriented Church. Despite an excellent team of staff and volunteers working on diocesan finances, we have a problem because more and more parishes can't afford what we are asking them to pay. Rather than wait until the problem develops into a crisis, we want to take action now, but we want the action we take to be strategic, so that we develop the diocese into an effective tool for mission.
"The local church is central to what the Church of England is. And parochial clergy are at the forefront of the church's mission. The process we are embarking upon is designed to protect these front-line clergy and provide the resources to equip them to fulfil their calling as God's ministers. However, we have to face up to the fact that clergy numbers could fall, and the way we use our clergy could change."
On Sunday 12th December every church in the diocese will play a taped message from the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Revd Keith Sutton, in which he will call the Diocese to prayer in the run up and during Lent. This will not be a time of asking God to provide money, but of listening to God to determine his will for the future shape of ministry in the Lichfield Diocese.
ENDS
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Sunday, December 29, 2002
Suggested GUIDELINES to follow when deciding who may be married in a church using the official marriage service of the Church
ADELPHOI,
For a discussion starter... and at the risk of getting into trouble... here are, especially for my North American readers,
Suggested GUIDELINES to follow when deciding who may be married in a church using the official marriage service of the Church
I have often stated that there is a connection (not logical but real in experience & practice) in the USA between the increase and acceptance of the divorce culture in churches and the campaign by homosexual persons to have their "faithful partnerships" blessed in church, and thus the best way to stop the advance of this part of the Lesbigay agenda is to begin gently but firmly to remove the divorce culture from the churches. In this context I have been called many things (e.g. "a legalist") and sometimes I have been asked by serious minded persons when it is right and proper for the local bishop/ parish to allow a service of holy matrimony when the two persons involved are not simply in law a bachelor and spinster (e.g., when one is a divorcee).
Here I set down some guidelines which are much the same as those recently offered by the Flying Bishops in England & Wales to parish priests who are under their pastoral supervision. (You will find similiar advice given in the ECUSA years ago and in the Church in S Africa more recently.)
1. If the first marriage has been annulled by the State court then a marriage of each of the parties to a different person in church is permissible, other things being equal.
2. There are some unions of a male and female, though incapable of being annulled in civil law, may be treated by the Church as being not true marriages and thus each person involved may, after divorce, be married to another, other things being equal. Examples of such unions are as follows:
In these instances, following a civil divorce, persons from categories a - e, and the baptized from f , would be eligible, other things being equal, to be married in church to a new spouse.
3. Apart from a decree of nullity from the State ("void marriages") it is possible for the Church to declare that the following unions are no longer marriages (that is they are "voidable marriages") and thus that persons involved in them after divorce are possible candidates for being married in church to another person, other things being equal.
.
With all such regulations (as has happened clearly in the Episcopal Church of the USA in the 1960s and following) it is possible to begin with the intention of keeping to them as interpreted reasonably yet strictly but then, due to the very powerful emotional pressure of the current divorce culture, and the greater context of human rights and the pursuit of personal happiness & satisfaction, to begin to interpret them loosely in favour of laxity and thus bring virtually every divorcee into one or another of the conditions listed above.
Today, nearly all bishops in the ECUSA allow a second marriage without any question and only begin to ask questions with respect to a third or fourth marriage. Many bishops take part in second and even a third marriage of a priest! And some of the major Continuing Churches make use of the power of annulment very liberally indeed so as to give the impression of keeping to traditional Anglican canon law, when they are rejecting it. In the C of E, new legislation for 2003 leaves the matter of who is to be married in the parish church entirely and finally in the hands and judgment of the parish priest! This is a very terrifying thing indeed to those of us who are parish priests.
Two final comments. Apart from any counselling, there needs to be for persons entering a second marriage a period of guided self-examination, confession and absolution so that he or she is prepared to enter the new marriage in soundness of mind and with a cleansed soul.
For many couples where one or both is/are divorcees it is probably better in some circumstances that they be married by the State and come to the church for a Service of Blessing, where God is asked in his merciful grace to bless their new union. This can be done in an attractive way so that it has something of the joy and solemnity of a marriage service proper.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon December 29th 2002
For a discussion starter... and at the risk of getting into trouble... here are, especially for my North American readers,
Suggested GUIDELINES to follow when deciding who may be married in a church using the official marriage service of the Church
I have often stated that there is a connection (not logical but real in experience & practice) in the USA between the increase and acceptance of the divorce culture in churches and the campaign by homosexual persons to have their "faithful partnerships" blessed in church, and thus the best way to stop the advance of this part of the Lesbigay agenda is to begin gently but firmly to remove the divorce culture from the churches. In this context I have been called many things (e.g. "a legalist") and sometimes I have been asked by serious minded persons when it is right and proper for the local bishop/ parish to allow a service of holy matrimony when the two persons involved are not simply in law a bachelor and spinster (e.g., when one is a divorcee).
Here I set down some guidelines which are much the same as those recently offered by the Flying Bishops in England & Wales to parish priests who are under their pastoral supervision. (You will find similiar advice given in the ECUSA years ago and in the Church in S Africa more recently.)
1. If the first marriage has been annulled by the State court then a marriage of each of the parties to a different person in church is permissible, other things being equal.
2. There are some unions of a male and female, though incapable of being annulled in civil law, may be treated by the Church as being not true marriages and thus each person involved may, after divorce, be married to another, other things being equal. Examples of such unions are as follows:
(a) the marriage was contracted clearly for such other reasons than those stated in the Preface to the Marriage Service in the BCP of 1662 - i.e., the procreation and nurture of children (save where age or condition make impossible), the hallowing and right direction of natural instincts and affections, & the mutual help and fellowship one with another at all times, in adversity and prosperity.
(b) At the time of the wedding one or both of the two involved was most clearly not able to evaluate and understand in basic terms (not in detail but in basics) what Christian marriage is all about. Thus he or she entered marriage with a very major misunderstanding or gross ignorance and he/she did not quickly learn.
(c) Most clear evidence of behaviour before, or soon after, the marriage showing that at the time of the marriage one party did not accept the marriage to be an exclusive and indissoluble union.
(d) Either party had an undisclosed yet clear intention not to have children.
(e) The existence of a pre-nuptial contract between the parties, providing for division of assets/property upon civil divorce, thereby suggesting that the union was intended to be merely conditional, and not for better or worse.
(f) Both persons at the time of the marriage were not baptized; later one of them becomes a Christian and is baptized and the other one, without any reasonable cause being given by the baptized one, departs not to return..
In these instances, following a civil divorce, persons from categories a - e, and the baptized from f , would be eligible, other things being equal, to be married in church to a new spouse.
3. Apart from a decree of nullity from the State ("void marriages") it is possible for the Church to declare that the following unions are no longer marriages (that is they are "voidable marriages") and thus that persons involved in them after divorce are possible candidates for being married in church to another person, other things being equal.
.
(a) One of the parties is impotent (except this be fully known to both before the marriage)
(b) One of the parties made the promises and consented when he or she was in such a state of mind as not to be wholly in charge of his/her statements and actions (e.g., through drug use or major illness).
(c) One of the parties, unknown to the other, had venereal disease in a communicable form.
(d) The woman, unknown to the man, was pregnant at the time of the marriage by another man
(e) There has been a wilful refusal by one of the parties to consummate the marriage.
With all such regulations (as has happened clearly in the Episcopal Church of the USA in the 1960s and following) it is possible to begin with the intention of keeping to them as interpreted reasonably yet strictly but then, due to the very powerful emotional pressure of the current divorce culture, and the greater context of human rights and the pursuit of personal happiness & satisfaction, to begin to interpret them loosely in favour of laxity and thus bring virtually every divorcee into one or another of the conditions listed above.
Today, nearly all bishops in the ECUSA allow a second marriage without any question and only begin to ask questions with respect to a third or fourth marriage. Many bishops take part in second and even a third marriage of a priest! And some of the major Continuing Churches make use of the power of annulment very liberally indeed so as to give the impression of keeping to traditional Anglican canon law, when they are rejecting it. In the C of E, new legislation for 2003 leaves the matter of who is to be married in the parish church entirely and finally in the hands and judgment of the parish priest! This is a very terrifying thing indeed to those of us who are parish priests.
Two final comments. Apart from any counselling, there needs to be for persons entering a second marriage a period of guided self-examination, confession and absolution so that he or she is prepared to enter the new marriage in soundness of mind and with a cleansed soul.
For many couples where one or both is/are divorcees it is probably better in some circumstances that they be married by the State and come to the church for a Service of Blessing, where God is asked in his merciful grace to bless their new union. This can be done in an attractive way so that it has something of the joy and solemnity of a marriage service proper.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon December 29th 2002
Friday, December 27, 2002
IDOLATRY -- the Anglican doctrine of
Adelphoi,
For your kind consideration and possible reponse,
IDOLATRY -- the Anglican doctrine of
What in 2003 are the perils of idolatry facing Christians in the high secularised western world?
Before beginning an answer (and inviting your comments) let us take a look back into our history.
"Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image.thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them." (Exodus 20)
This Commandment has always been taken by Anglicans as a moral Command from God. Thus it applies everywhere in all circumstances. (The problem as we shall see, is how rightly to interpret it!)
It was understood by the Early Church of condemning and forbidding all forms of pagan worship and any attempt by the Church to make representations (statues & the like) of God, Christ or even the Apostles and the Virgin Mary.
It was understood by the English Reformers of the 16th century as not only condemning and forbidding all forms of pagan worship but also all the "traditional" medieval images, carvings, pictures, crucifixes and statues of parishes churches. The most accessible, authentic denunciation of the outward forms of inherited medieval religion is found in "An Homily against Peril of Idolatry and Superflous Decking of Churches", which is in the second Book of Homilies (referred to in the Thirty-Nine Articles) and is thus part of the doctrine of the Church of England under Elizabeth I.
If we receive this Homily as delivering the doctrine of the C of E [and of the Anglican Communion] in 2003 then we have to say that virtually all parishes churches and cathedrals in the West [or "North"] and many also in the rest of the world place those who enter them in "the peril of idolatry." The Homily does not teach that the presence of images and icons absolutely and always causes those who use them not merely to venerate but also to worship them, but it insists that the dangers of so doing and falling into idolatry are so great that the risk should not be taken and thus they should all be removed from churches immediately.
Let us, for the sake of discussion, accept the position of the Homily that in the context of pagan idolatry (in which the Israelites/Jews and then the Early Church were situated) the perils of idolatry are most real for the ethos of that time was aggressively towards treating representations as if they were the real thing.
Let us also, for the sake of discussion, accept that that the inherited traditional religion of the Ecclesia Anglicana (the Church of England) was plenteously rich in images, statues, carvings and a multitude of representations of deity, angels, apostles, saints and martyrs and thus, to the Protestant Reformers, was totally at odds with the 2nd commandment of the Ten. (For details of all this rich imagery see the excellent study by Eamon Duffy, "The Stripping of the Altars. Traditional Religion in England 1400 - 1580" Yale Univ Press.)
In the context of the plentiful use of images, crucifixes, carvings of many kinds, and the like, in all parishes churches and cathedrals, the only way forward for the morally intense reforming preachers, was to warn of the perils of idolatry and to work for the removal of all such from places of worship. And this was achieved in general terms by the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth 1.
Today, the context in which we seek to worship God in the West is certainly not the inherited traditional religion of the Medieval Centuries. It is a secularised society, which has been deeply affected by the Enlightenment, Modernism & Post-Modernism, by the massive building achievements of major roads and skyscrapers, of technological and scientific progress in a multitude of different forms, of the pervading power of the media, as well by the human rights and the self-worth aspects of modern culture.
In other words, we are not like the Early Church or like the Church in the 16th century in being surrounded by religious images, icons and statues. Rather we are surrounded by massive constructions of concrete, steel and glass, and we receive colour images via computer and TV screen of a desacralized world. We are in peril of idolatry when we watch the superstars of sports and the entertainment industry; we are in peril of idolatry when we are absorbed by the love of money or capital or stocks/shares; we are in peril of idolatry when we over admire and trust in the might of national war-making ability and strength. And so on.
So I do not think that for the average Anglican (or these days Southern
Baptist) church there is much of a peril of idolatry in having a Crib at Christmas, a donkey on Palm Sunday, a Cross for Good Friday, and candles here and there. Such things can these days be aids to the imagination in making a good atmosphere and creating in the mind's eye the biblical narrative, that is being read from the sacred Scriptures. I can see that where there is an excess of statues, icons and the like, (as in some very traditional Catholic, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic churches) there is the danger for some people of confusing the veneration of the image with the adoration/worship of Almighty God (and thus I can see that regular teaching needs to be given by clergy and teachers on the right use of icons, images and visual aids to imagination and understanding in Christian worship). I can also see that for many people surrounded by concrete, steel and glass a beautifully appointed church can be a real help in switching gear as it were and become attune to the transcendent dimensions of our life.
What we need I think is a new Homily, written for us in the West in 2003, that solemnly, powerfully, clearly and eloquently warns us of the perils of idolatry facing Christians via the Media, the secularised culture, the claims and intentions of governments (especially that of the USA) and the powers of technology and science. Meanwhile I think that we can all from Baptist to Anglican to Methodist & Pentecostal benefit from the Christmas Crib, the Cross as the universal sign of Christianity, and other simple yet profound visual aids to the entry into the sacred and into the felt presence of the transcendent yet present living God, the Lord.
St John the Evangelist's Day, Dec 27, 2002.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
For your kind consideration and possible reponse,
IDOLATRY -- the Anglican doctrine of
What in 2003 are the perils of idolatry facing Christians in the high secularised western world?
Before beginning an answer (and inviting your comments) let us take a look back into our history.
"Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image.thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them." (Exodus 20)
This Commandment has always been taken by Anglicans as a moral Command from God. Thus it applies everywhere in all circumstances. (The problem as we shall see, is how rightly to interpret it!)
It was understood by the Early Church of condemning and forbidding all forms of pagan worship and any attempt by the Church to make representations (statues & the like) of God, Christ or even the Apostles and the Virgin Mary.
It was understood by the English Reformers of the 16th century as not only condemning and forbidding all forms of pagan worship but also all the "traditional" medieval images, carvings, pictures, crucifixes and statues of parishes churches. The most accessible, authentic denunciation of the outward forms of inherited medieval religion is found in "An Homily against Peril of Idolatry and Superflous Decking of Churches", which is in the second Book of Homilies (referred to in the Thirty-Nine Articles) and is thus part of the doctrine of the Church of England under Elizabeth I.
If we receive this Homily as delivering the doctrine of the C of E [and of the Anglican Communion] in 2003 then we have to say that virtually all parishes churches and cathedrals in the West [or "North"] and many also in the rest of the world place those who enter them in "the peril of idolatry." The Homily does not teach that the presence of images and icons absolutely and always causes those who use them not merely to venerate but also to worship them, but it insists that the dangers of so doing and falling into idolatry are so great that the risk should not be taken and thus they should all be removed from churches immediately.
Let us, for the sake of discussion, accept the position of the Homily that in the context of pagan idolatry (in which the Israelites/Jews and then the Early Church were situated) the perils of idolatry are most real for the ethos of that time was aggressively towards treating representations as if they were the real thing.
Let us also, for the sake of discussion, accept that that the inherited traditional religion of the Ecclesia Anglicana (the Church of England) was plenteously rich in images, statues, carvings and a multitude of representations of deity, angels, apostles, saints and martyrs and thus, to the Protestant Reformers, was totally at odds with the 2nd commandment of the Ten. (For details of all this rich imagery see the excellent study by Eamon Duffy, "The Stripping of the Altars. Traditional Religion in England 1400 - 1580" Yale Univ Press.)
In the context of the plentiful use of images, crucifixes, carvings of many kinds, and the like, in all parishes churches and cathedrals, the only way forward for the morally intense reforming preachers, was to warn of the perils of idolatry and to work for the removal of all such from places of worship. And this was achieved in general terms by the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth 1.
Today, the context in which we seek to worship God in the West is certainly not the inherited traditional religion of the Medieval Centuries. It is a secularised society, which has been deeply affected by the Enlightenment, Modernism & Post-Modernism, by the massive building achievements of major roads and skyscrapers, of technological and scientific progress in a multitude of different forms, of the pervading power of the media, as well by the human rights and the self-worth aspects of modern culture.
In other words, we are not like the Early Church or like the Church in the 16th century in being surrounded by religious images, icons and statues. Rather we are surrounded by massive constructions of concrete, steel and glass, and we receive colour images via computer and TV screen of a desacralized world. We are in peril of idolatry when we watch the superstars of sports and the entertainment industry; we are in peril of idolatry when we are absorbed by the love of money or capital or stocks/shares; we are in peril of idolatry when we over admire and trust in the might of national war-making ability and strength. And so on.
So I do not think that for the average Anglican (or these days Southern
Baptist) church there is much of a peril of idolatry in having a Crib at Christmas, a donkey on Palm Sunday, a Cross for Good Friday, and candles here and there. Such things can these days be aids to the imagination in making a good atmosphere and creating in the mind's eye the biblical narrative, that is being read from the sacred Scriptures. I can see that where there is an excess of statues, icons and the like, (as in some very traditional Catholic, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic churches) there is the danger for some people of confusing the veneration of the image with the adoration/worship of Almighty God (and thus I can see that regular teaching needs to be given by clergy and teachers on the right use of icons, images and visual aids to imagination and understanding in Christian worship). I can also see that for many people surrounded by concrete, steel and glass a beautifully appointed church can be a real help in switching gear as it were and become attune to the transcendent dimensions of our life.
What we need I think is a new Homily, written for us in the West in 2003, that solemnly, powerfully, clearly and eloquently warns us of the perils of idolatry facing Christians via the Media, the secularised culture, the claims and intentions of governments (especially that of the USA) and the powers of technology and science. Meanwhile I think that we can all from Baptist to Anglican to Methodist & Pentecostal benefit from the Christmas Crib, the Cross as the universal sign of Christianity, and other simple yet profound visual aids to the entry into the sacred and into the felt presence of the transcendent yet present living God, the Lord.
St John the Evangelist's Day, Dec 27, 2002.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Saturday, December 21, 2002
VISUAL AIDS
Baptists & Icons and Anglicans and Iconoclasm
The ceremonial, decorative or aesthetic dimension of church buildings presents an interesting topic for observation and reflection.
In early December, I was in the South of the USA in Georgia, which is, as they say, "Baptist country." There are millions of Baptists in this southern State and most of them are Southern Baptists!
What I saw in a couple of big Baptist churches was the recognition of Advent (the advent wreath with the five candles), the display of candles (to point to the Light than lightens every man - John 1 ), the Crib waiting to make its entrance nearer to Christmas, and on the wall behind the pulpit a large Cross. There will be a Christmas Tree in the Vestibule or some other prominent place. There will be Nativity plays and the choir will all be robed for Sunday worship as if they were singing in a Cathedral.
An earnest Calvinist asked me: "Have these people not heard of the Reformation and the putting away of images and icons by sound Protestants?"
I do not know how much detail of the Protestant Reformation (or the Puritan ascendancy under Oliver Cromwell) the thousands of members of these churches actually are familiar with. What seems reasonably clear is that they do not see any connection between on the one hand the iconoclasm, or setting aside of visual aids to prayer and worship, which happened in the 16th & 17th centuries and on the other hand their desire to have visual aids to prayer and worship in 2002. The contexts are so wholly different.
The fact of the matter is that the Baptists of Georgia, who are famed for their Bible-based religion, see such things as an Advent wreath, a Crib, Candles, a Nativity Play and the Cross as visual helps to focus their minds on the contents of the Bible, the faith of their Creed and especially (in a culture which is dominated by images through the media) to keep their young people focused and interested in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in a stable and crucified on a Cross.
The Baptists of Georgia are not looking over their shoulder at the Roman Catholic Church and seeking to be as different as they can from Catholics in worship. They are the majority and so they decide what to do on the basis of what they think will help the spread of their understanding and practice of Christianity! And in this image/visual age they see that they need more than bare churches and black covered Bibles! They need icons or visual aids if they are to make their Faith meaningful in the modern culture.
Now let us cross the ocean Eastwards and visit the few Anglican parishes in Britain which support Orangeism (Irish Protestantism) or are in the "Reform" group or are excessively Protestant (say 2 per cent of the whole). Here you will most likely see no Cross in the church, no Advent wreath, no candles on the Holy Table, no Nativity Play and no Crib. Only the Christmas tree which has no connection historically with Romanism will be allowed, and this in and of itself, is not a Christian symbol. (It becomes so by association with other visual aids like the Crib)
Why this rejection of Cross and Crib? Because the mental paradigm by which they look upon and evaluate Christianity is dominated by an anti-popery and anti-icon mindset. They think as did some of the Reformers in the 16th century and many of the Puritans in the seventeenth century. That is, they see visual aids as idols in disguise as left-overs of popery and the religion of antichrist. They have no idea that Vatican II made great changes in the Roman Catholic Church or that visual aids have always been blessed by the church to help our imagination be focused.
To return to the USA.
What the Baptists in Georgia have discovered (even though few of them realise it) is the distinction made by the seventh ecumenical council of the Church at Nicea in 787 concerning veneration and worship/adoration. The Cross & the Crib, the holy picture and the holy statue, point to the Lord Jesus Christ or to his Blessed Mother or to his Apostles/Saints. These artifacts are certainly not to be worshipped; but they actually help the imagination to focus on the living Lord and the blessed company of saints and angels who surround him. Worship is only to be offered to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Visual aids help us to understand the Gospel message the better and thus to engage in that adoration of God himself. The text of the Bible and the visual aids are to be venerated but not adored. Only God the Holy Trinity is to be worshipped.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
The ceremonial, decorative or aesthetic dimension of church buildings presents an interesting topic for observation and reflection.
In early December, I was in the South of the USA in Georgia, which is, as they say, "Baptist country." There are millions of Baptists in this southern State and most of them are Southern Baptists!
What I saw in a couple of big Baptist churches was the recognition of Advent (the advent wreath with the five candles), the display of candles (to point to the Light than lightens every man - John 1 ), the Crib waiting to make its entrance nearer to Christmas, and on the wall behind the pulpit a large Cross. There will be a Christmas Tree in the Vestibule or some other prominent place. There will be Nativity plays and the choir will all be robed for Sunday worship as if they were singing in a Cathedral.
An earnest Calvinist asked me: "Have these people not heard of the Reformation and the putting away of images and icons by sound Protestants?"
I do not know how much detail of the Protestant Reformation (or the Puritan ascendancy under Oliver Cromwell) the thousands of members of these churches actually are familiar with. What seems reasonably clear is that they do not see any connection between on the one hand the iconoclasm, or setting aside of visual aids to prayer and worship, which happened in the 16th & 17th centuries and on the other hand their desire to have visual aids to prayer and worship in 2002. The contexts are so wholly different.
The fact of the matter is that the Baptists of Georgia, who are famed for their Bible-based religion, see such things as an Advent wreath, a Crib, Candles, a Nativity Play and the Cross as visual helps to focus their minds on the contents of the Bible, the faith of their Creed and especially (in a culture which is dominated by images through the media) to keep their young people focused and interested in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in a stable and crucified on a Cross.
The Baptists of Georgia are not looking over their shoulder at the Roman Catholic Church and seeking to be as different as they can from Catholics in worship. They are the majority and so they decide what to do on the basis of what they think will help the spread of their understanding and practice of Christianity! And in this image/visual age they see that they need more than bare churches and black covered Bibles! They need icons or visual aids if they are to make their Faith meaningful in the modern culture.
Now let us cross the ocean Eastwards and visit the few Anglican parishes in Britain which support Orangeism (Irish Protestantism) or are in the "Reform" group or are excessively Protestant (say 2 per cent of the whole). Here you will most likely see no Cross in the church, no Advent wreath, no candles on the Holy Table, no Nativity Play and no Crib. Only the Christmas tree which has no connection historically with Romanism will be allowed, and this in and of itself, is not a Christian symbol. (It becomes so by association with other visual aids like the Crib)
Why this rejection of Cross and Crib? Because the mental paradigm by which they look upon and evaluate Christianity is dominated by an anti-popery and anti-icon mindset. They think as did some of the Reformers in the 16th century and many of the Puritans in the seventeenth century. That is, they see visual aids as idols in disguise as left-overs of popery and the religion of antichrist. They have no idea that Vatican II made great changes in the Roman Catholic Church or that visual aids have always been blessed by the church to help our imagination be focused.
To return to the USA.
What the Baptists in Georgia have discovered (even though few of them realise it) is the distinction made by the seventh ecumenical council of the Church at Nicea in 787 concerning veneration and worship/adoration. The Cross & the Crib, the holy picture and the holy statue, point to the Lord Jesus Christ or to his Blessed Mother or to his Apostles/Saints. These artifacts are certainly not to be worshipped; but they actually help the imagination to focus on the living Lord and the blessed company of saints and angels who surround him. Worship is only to be offered to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Visual aids help us to understand the Gospel message the better and thus to engage in that adoration of God himself. The text of the Bible and the visual aids are to be venerated but not adored. Only God the Holy Trinity is to be worshipped.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
January/February Mandate Available On Line
Adelphoi,
The Jan/Feb 2003 issue of The Mandate is now on line, edited by me. It is on the theme of Cranmer and his jewelled miniatures, that is the Collects of the BCP - their origins, style, content and religion. The author of two of the pieces therein is the distinguished professor of English, Ian Robinson, who has written important books on the origins and nature of English prose.
please go to: www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928
Also at my church website there is available for hearing (via your speakers) the most important of all Nativity Sermons, that in the official Book of Homilies and approved by Elizabeth I in the 1560s. I have the privilege of reading it as though I were preaching it in the Church of England. It lasts 34 minutes. By its standards most of our modern efforts appear to be doctrinally weak!
please go to: www.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk
PLEASE enjoy both visits, and do have a splendid TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS
Thank you,
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
The Jan/Feb 2003 issue of The Mandate is now on line, edited by me. It is on the theme of Cranmer and his jewelled miniatures, that is the Collects of the BCP - their origins, style, content and religion. The author of two of the pieces therein is the distinguished professor of English, Ian Robinson, who has written important books on the origins and nature of English prose.
please go to: www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928
Also at my church website there is available for hearing (via your speakers) the most important of all Nativity Sermons, that in the official Book of Homilies and approved by Elizabeth I in the 1560s. I have the privilege of reading it as though I were preaching it in the Church of England. It lasts 34 minutes. By its standards most of our modern efforts appear to be doctrinally weak!
please go to: www.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk
PLEASE enjoy both visits, and do have a splendid TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS
Thank you,
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Thursday, December 19, 2002
Listen to the Homily for the Nativity Online
Adelphoi,
There is only one official HOMILY for the NATIVITY and it is found in the Book of Homilies referred to in the Thirty-Nine Articles.
I have recorded this (35 mins) and it is available at my parish website. www.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk
I hope you enjoy listening to it and that my voice does not diminish its sublime content.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
There is only one official HOMILY for the NATIVITY and it is found in the Book of Homilies referred to in the Thirty-Nine Articles.
I have recorded this (35 mins) and it is available at my parish website. www.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk
I hope you enjoy listening to it and that my voice does not diminish its sublime content.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
TRANSFORMED BY THE RIVER OF THE WATER OF LIFE
I believe that the following is of interest and so I send it. The writer is a fine young man who has a great passion for the Church of God and her Truth.
It is a report of part of the the Speech of Bishop Bennison of PA to his diocese with comments of James Altena who attends St James the Less. -- P.T.
"'Wherever the river goes, everything lives.'" (Ezekiel 47:9)
"'Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the streets of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.'" (Revelation 22:1)
"Jesus said, 'As the scripture has said, "Out of the believer's belly shall flow rivers of living water."' (John 7:38)
[Bp. Bennison proceeds to offer numerous examples of what he claims are examples of how Diocesan activities in the last year are resulting in various sins being healed by the leaves of the tree of life, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, and "adult privilege" that assumes the superiority of adults to children. Then occurs the following text.]
COMMENTS --
As Fr. Ousley has observed on several occasions, "Bp. Bennison appears to have a different conception of 'truth' than we do." Herewith several illustrations:
1) The fact that Bp. Bennison can describe as acts of healing the suing of his own parishes in secular courts, the inhibiting and deposing of godly, faithful, orthodox parish priests, and the expulsion of faithful orthodox Christians, is singularly revelatory of his mindset. Throughout all his dealings with traditionalist parishes, there has been a complete absence of any pastoral concern. Instead, his approach has been one consisting entirely and only of legalistic authority -- "I am the bishop, and therefore you are obliged to do whatever I say." In his meeting with the vestry of St. James the Less while I was a vestry member, he brought to it not a copy of Scripture but of the Constitutions and Canons of the Episcopal Church. He did not cite even one passage of Scripture to support his position, and told the vestry point-blank that it had no right to act upon conscience, but was obligated to obey his interpretation of the canons. This is of completely contrary to all traditional Christian moral theology, which teaches the absolute obligation to act in conformity with scripturally and spiritually informed conscience.
2) The claim that the disaffiliation of SJL from ECUSA by a vote of 33 out of its 70 members is extremely misleading. The parish had about 60, not 70, voting members, all of whom were notified of the meeting in advance by mail. Of those, almost a dozen were hospitalized or homebound by illness or disability, and about ten more were traveling. In short, almost every member of the parish who was able to attend did so. The actual vote for disaffiliation by those attending was 33 to 2. It is a remarkable testimony to the unity of the parish that not one parishioner notified the Diocese in advance of the meeting and vote, and that only one person left the parish as a result of disagreement with the disaffiliation, and even then did not do so until a year afterwards.
3) SJL did not attempt "in violation of their own corporate charter and our canons, to steal the property of the parish from the Episcopal Church." Following the advice of legal counsel, the rector, vestry and parishioners acted in strict conformity with the parish corporate charter, national and diocesan church canons, and corporate law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to effect the disaffiliation. The parish charter and title deeds have always been in the name and possession of the parish itself. The diocese has never contributed even one cent of support to SJL in its 150+ year history. The alleged claim by the national church and diocese to the parish property is based on a national canon that was enacted only at the 1979 General Convention, in a highly irregular manner that did not provide for prior knowledge, review, or informed consent by individual parishes. Our legal counsel contests on several grounds both that this canon applies to SJL, and also distorted diocesan interpretations of the parish charter and by-laws as well as various canons. Also, none of the canons have any provisions regarding merger of an existing parish corporation into another corporate entity in order to perpetuate its existence -- as was undertaken by SJL -- in contrast to dissolution of such a corporation. Use of derogatory terms such as "steal" to describe the parish disaffiliation action are extremely pejorative, inflammatory, and hardly consonant with any claim by Bp. Bennison to be pursuing "reconciliation."
4) The bishop and diocese have not "patiently pursued a mediation process with the parish's leaders." SJL agreed to a mediation process at their request, after which they repeatedly refused to schedule any regular sessions, and then canceled or postponed the few that were scheduled. As a result, only four short meetings (one of which was not a mediation session) took place in a 70-day period, at which they presented no other position than that SJL should agree unilaterally to all of their demands. Similar conduct has occurred with Good Shepherd and All Saints', where Bp. Bennison has requested mediation and then unilaterally canceled it when that was not defined a priori as complete surrender to his demands.
5) Forward in Faith - North America, the nationwide organization of Anglican traditionalists of which Fr. Moyer is president, is not "schismatic" -- indeed, if anything it has bent over backwards (perhaps too much so) to find ways still to remain within ECUSA. Fr. Moyer's supposed deposition has been rejected not only by numerous bishops in the USA, such as Bp. Duncan of Pittsburgh (who has made Fr. Moyer canonically a member of his diocese), but also by bishops abroad, including no less than the recently retired and newly installed Archbishops of Canterbury, George Carey and Rowan Williams -- and Williams is a theological liberal. Furthermore, not only had nothing in the national or diocesan canons "required" Bp. Bennison to depose Fr. Moyer, the deposition was done (as the other bishops above publicly recognized) in clear violation of the canons, which are for deposing a priest who has renounced the communion of ECUSA, not one such as Fr. Moyer who has sought to remain within it. Also, Fr. Moyer did deny the legitimacy of the charges lodged against him as the pretext for his inhibition and subsequent deposition. (Note also Bp. Bennison's patronizing and false pretense to familiarity and friendship in speaking of "David" rather than "Fr. Moyer," which also allows him to avoid having to refer to Fr. Moyer as a priest by title. Remarkably, in court documents filed during the SJL trial in October 2002, Bp. Bennison admitted that Fr. Moyer was both a priest and the rector of Good Shepherd, over a month after Fr. Moyer's putative "deposition.") Likewise, Bp. Bennison's refusal to renew Fr. Rix's license also had no proper canonical or other justification.
6) Contrary to statements made elsewhere by theological revisionists such as Bp. Bennison, heresy and schism are not distinct sins, with tolerance of heresy under the rubrics of "unity" and "diversity" trumping schism as institutional division. Rather, heresy is a form of schism; all schism is a manifestation of either doctrinal heresy, or of pride, judgmentalism, and hardness of heart, by one (sometimes both) sides. Where schism is the visible manifestation and result of heresy, it is the heretics who are schismatic, not the orthodox faithful which Scripture commands to separate from them. The fundamental unity of the church is doctrinal and moral, not institutional, critical though the latter is; the latter is the function and manifestation of the former, and does not and cannot exist without it. (See Point 9B below.)
7) The Church is a corpus mixtum, but again not in the way that Bp. Bennison pretends. We simultaneously are all sinners and saints, with the latter being revealed and shaped out of the former as the new man in Christ supersedes the old man of worldliness in those who surrender themselves unreservedly to Christ. This is not the same thing as defiant justification by unrepentant sinners of sin as not being sin but virtue, which is what Bp. Bennison supports. ("Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! . . . Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!" -- Isaiah 5:20-23.)
8) Ultimately, however, all of the above points are secondary to one single main point -- Bp. Bennison's betrayal of his own office as a bishop. By definition, that office is to preach, practice, and hand down -- unaltered, undiminished, unaugmented, and unimpaired -- the traditional teaching of Christ, as recorded in the Scriptures, preached by the Apostles, and defined by the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils of the undivided patristic Church. By definition, it is absolutely closed to any innovations in fundamental theological and moral doctrines. Instead, Bp. Bennison has openly violated that sacred trust at every turn, even going so far as to claim publicly that "Since the Church wrote the Bible, the Church can rewrite the Bible." He has refused to sign any document or make any public affirmation of belief in traditional Christian doctrine and morals, and openly supports and promotes such anti-Scriptural and anti-patristic practices such as pagan prayer to God as "Mother" rather than "Father," the putative ordination of women bishops and priests, sexual activity outside of marriage, and abortion, and has preached sermons that pervert and even ridicule the plain meaning of Scripture.
The other defining aspect of the episcopal office is pastoral -- the bishop is supposed to care for his clergy and laity in a self-sacrificial manner after the example of Christ and the apostles. Instead, Bp. Bennison has viewed his office in the legalistic terms of a corporate executive or government bureaucrat, whose goal is the possession and exercise of unlimited power for self-aggrandizement. He has acted as a ravening wolf, smiting the shepherds and scattering the sheep. (Cf. Jeremiah 23:1-4, Ezekiel 34:1-31, John 10:1-5, Acts 20:28-31, and Point 9A below.) SJL, Good Shepherd, and All Saints' have all -- in conformity with Scriptural admonitions, patristic church teaching, and Article XXVI of the 39 Articles of the Book of Common Prayer -- refused to receive an episcopal visitation from Bp. Bennison. They do so not because they are Donatists who deny the formal validity of Bp. Bennison's sacramental administrations (note again how Bp. Bennison misrepresents the position of the Donatists as being one merely of objection to a bishop's views, rather than denial of the validity of his orders and sacramental administrations), but because Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition both require faithful orthodox Christians to separate themselves (in charity, not vindictiveness) from an unrepentant heretic -- in the case of clergy, including his teaching and his sacramental acts -- until he is converted from his errors in doctrine and moral conduct.
(Cf. Matthew 7:15 & 10:16-39, Mark 13:22, John 16:1-4, Acts 20:28-31, Romans 16:17-20, I Corinthians 5:1-13 & 10:13-21, II Corinthians 6:14-7:1, Galatians 1:6-10, Ephesians 5:1-13, II Thessalonians 3:6-15, I Timothy 1:5-11 & 6:3-12 & 6:20-21, II Timothy 3:1-4:8, Titus 1:7-16 & 2:7-8 & 3:10-11, II Peter 2:1-3 & 2:17-22, I John 2:18-23 & 4:1-6, II John 7-11, Jude 3-4 & 17-23, Revelation 2:12-29.)
Both Christ and the apostles warned us that in doing so we should be subject to reviling and persecution, and that consequently we should not mourn, but rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for the holy name of Jesus. Sadly, it is clear that our persecutors have a different mind, hold a different religion, and preach and worship a different God, than that set forth in Scripture for the salvation of all, and we pray earnestly for their enlightenment and conversion. (Cf. John 15:18-16:4, Acts 5:41, James 5:16-20, I Peter 3:14-18, I John 3:13.)
9) Finally, here are two pertinent supporting quotations --
A) From a sermon by the saintly 19th c. Anglo-Catholic priest, blessed James DeKoven. The first paragraph describes well the outlook of Bp. Bennison, as opposed to the Scriptural view in the second paragraph. (DeKoven did not envision here the present situation in which church Canons are being willfully framed and interpreted to subvert rather than support
Scripture.) --
"Theoretically the well-trained churchman has a very lofty idea of the Episcopal office -- sometimes an exaggerated notion of it; and yet, while this exists, practically the office is shorn of its real glory. The money-qualified electors choose the Vestry, and the delegates of the Council; the lay delegates have either an actual, or, at any rate, a veto power in the election of a Bishop. It is not surprising that they should feel as if the elected Bishop had simply such powers as may be conferred upon him by the Constitution and Canons of the Church, which they or their pre-decessors have formed, and which at any time may, by due process of law, be altered. Hence, a Bishop's work and duty is whatever the Canons require him to do. He is to ordain, and confirm, and hold visitations. He is to preside at Councils and be the chairman of committees. He is to be the pleasant guest of the chief layman of the parish and advise the clergyman when advice is needed. He is to attend to routine duties without end, and, above all, to be in journeyings often. If he can preach well and talk well, if he is provident and cautious and a good executive officer; if he has personal influence and an untiring physique, if his digestion is unimpaired, his nerves unruffled; if he concentrates himself upon nothing, and diffuses a mild Episcopal perfume over everything, he meets the common theory as to what a bishop ought to be.
"The opposite theory only needs to be stated. He receives the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God. He is bound to be an overseer, to confirm, to ordain, to do all the works I have mentioned. But, above all, he is called to be one upon whose soul the awful burden is laid, to convert men to the obedience of the faith. He must offer the Holy Eucharist; he must preach the Word, he must bind and loose; he must organize; he must, above all things, be a shepherd, a guide, a Father. The Canons of the Church are simply the directions according to which he exercises his office. Wheresoever they do not limit that office, the inherent powers remain; and to convert men to Christ, to be the chief pastor of his Diocese -- this is the Bishop's glory."
B) A pronouncement of the first and second Councils of Constantinople in the time of Archbishop Photius, c. 870-880 A.D. --
"They who separate themselves from communion with their bishop on account of any heresy condemned by the Holy Synods or the Fathers, while he evidently proclaims the heresy publicly, and teaches it with brave front in church -- such persons, in excluding themselves from communion with their so-called bishop before synodical cognizance, not only shall not be subject to canonical censure, but shall even be deemed worthy, by the orthodox, of becoming honor; for they condemn as teachers, not bishops but pseudo-bishops; and they do not cut up the unity of the Church by schism, but hasten to deliver her from schisms and divisions."
Faithfully, James Altena
It is a report of part of the the Speech of Bishop Bennison of PA to his diocese with comments of James Altena who attends St James the Less. -- P.T.
"'Wherever the river goes, everything lives.'" (Ezekiel 47:9)
"'Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the streets of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.'" (Revelation 22:1)
"Jesus said, 'As the scripture has said, "Out of the believer's belly shall flow rivers of living water."' (John 7:38)
[Bp. Bennison proceeds to offer numerous examples of what he claims are examples of how Diocesan activities in the last year are resulting in various sins being healed by the leaves of the tree of life, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, and "adult privilege" that assumes the superiority of adults to children. Then occurs the following text.]
"Healing the Schism of St. James the Less, East Falls --
By the leaves of this tree, Christ is healing the schism begun by the rector and vestry of the Church of St. James the Less, East Falls, when in 1997 they created a 'shell' corporation into which, in April 1999, by a vote of 33 of their 70 members, they merged the corporation of their parish, thereby attempting, in violation of their own corporate charter and our canons, to steal the property of the parish from the Episcopal Church. In 2001, we patiently pursued a mediation process with the parish's leaders. When that process failed, we filed a petition to protect the property. The trial took place on October 14-15, and we are awaiting the judge's decision, due by the end of January. If, as expected, the diocese retains the church property, I will appoint a priest-in-charge to rebuild our ministry in that critical, growing urban neighborhood.
"Healing the Schism of Good Shepherd, Rosemont --
By the leaves of this tree, Christ is healing the schism created by the rector and vestry of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont. For 16 years the parish has not allowed a bishop diocesan to confirm. For a decade the former rector, David Moyer, has refused to receive the bishop. After David told me he would be willing to be a candidate for election as a bishop by a schismatic organization he heads, the Standing Committee prepared and delivered to me last February 26 its finding that based on a consistent pattern of canonical failures over a decade, David had abandoned the discipline, and therefore the communion, of the church. When I affirmed the Standing Committee's findings I was required by canon law to inhibit David. When after six months David neither denied the Standing Committee charges nor retracted the actions on the basis of which they were laid, I was canonically required on September 5 to depose him. Because the wardens and vestry persisted in having David function following his deposition, on October 22 the Standing Committee invoked Diocesan Canon 13.4, declaring the bishop to be the trustee of the parish and consenting to my vesting the parish's property in the Church Foundation. I continue to seek reconciliation and hope to avoid litigation in the civil courts, but I will do what is necessary to retain the property for the Episcopal Church and rebuild the congregation.
"Healing the Schism of All Saints', Wynnewood --
By the leaves of this tree, Christ is healing the schism created by the vestry of All Saints' Church, Wynnewood. When the parish's rector resigned, contrary to diocesan policy the vestry chose the assistant, the Rev. Edward Rix, a priest of the Diocese of Lusaka in the Province of Central Africa. I later agreed to appoint Fr. Rix the interim if he would sign our standard letter of agreement. When he refused to sign the agreement and his annual license to function here expired last January, I did not renew it. Then on October 8 the vestry voted to have Fr. Rix resume celebrating and preaching without a license, and despite my inhibition of him on October 11, he did so. His own bishop has 90 days to initiate disciplinary action regarding Fr. Rix. Should Bishop Mwenda fail to do so, I will. On October 22 the Standing Committee declared that the vestry has violated the discipline of the church, made the bishop trustee of the property, and consented to my vesting the property in the Church Foundation.
"These three situations have been painful in the extreme, making this past year for me an annus horribilis. At the same time, in my 58 years I have had one broken bone and five surgeries, enough to know that the road to health is sometimes paved with pain. I have been blessed by and am deeply grateful for the advice, counsel and courage of our Standing Committee, for the guidance provided by our deans, our Diocesan Council, my staff and hundreds of you. Above all, by the leaves of these trees Christ is healing us and our whole church of the sin of schism and the heresy of Donatism. Donatus, and subsequently the Donatists, claimed that the efficacy of our Christian ministries depends on the purity, the moral quality or the theological confession of us who are administering them. It leads to the attitude that says: 'If the bishop doesn't think or act just like we believe he should, we will not welcome him here.' As Anglicans, by contrast, we believe that the church is a corpus mixtum, a 'mixed body' of saints and sinners, of 'wheat and tares together sown.' Inasmuch as our addressing these parish's schismatic behavior in the way we have has become iconic for the contest with Donatism across the Anglican Communion, inasmuch as many eyes are on Pennsylvania right now, all of us are carrying a burden we neither desired nor deserved, but also find ourselves facing an opportunity to make a significant contribution to our Communion's unity and integrity."
COMMENTS --
As Fr. Ousley has observed on several occasions, "Bp. Bennison appears to have a different conception of 'truth' than we do." Herewith several illustrations:
1) The fact that Bp. Bennison can describe as acts of healing the suing of his own parishes in secular courts, the inhibiting and deposing of godly, faithful, orthodox parish priests, and the expulsion of faithful orthodox Christians, is singularly revelatory of his mindset. Throughout all his dealings with traditionalist parishes, there has been a complete absence of any pastoral concern. Instead, his approach has been one consisting entirely and only of legalistic authority -- "I am the bishop, and therefore you are obliged to do whatever I say." In his meeting with the vestry of St. James the Less while I was a vestry member, he brought to it not a copy of Scripture but of the Constitutions and Canons of the Episcopal Church. He did not cite even one passage of Scripture to support his position, and told the vestry point-blank that it had no right to act upon conscience, but was obligated to obey his interpretation of the canons. This is of completely contrary to all traditional Christian moral theology, which teaches the absolute obligation to act in conformity with scripturally and spiritually informed conscience.
2) The claim that the disaffiliation of SJL from ECUSA by a vote of 33 out of its 70 members is extremely misleading. The parish had about 60, not 70, voting members, all of whom were notified of the meeting in advance by mail. Of those, almost a dozen were hospitalized or homebound by illness or disability, and about ten more were traveling. In short, almost every member of the parish who was able to attend did so. The actual vote for disaffiliation by those attending was 33 to 2. It is a remarkable testimony to the unity of the parish that not one parishioner notified the Diocese in advance of the meeting and vote, and that only one person left the parish as a result of disagreement with the disaffiliation, and even then did not do so until a year afterwards.
3) SJL did not attempt "in violation of their own corporate charter and our canons, to steal the property of the parish from the Episcopal Church." Following the advice of legal counsel, the rector, vestry and parishioners acted in strict conformity with the parish corporate charter, national and diocesan church canons, and corporate law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to effect the disaffiliation. The parish charter and title deeds have always been in the name and possession of the parish itself. The diocese has never contributed even one cent of support to SJL in its 150+ year history. The alleged claim by the national church and diocese to the parish property is based on a national canon that was enacted only at the 1979 General Convention, in a highly irregular manner that did not provide for prior knowledge, review, or informed consent by individual parishes. Our legal counsel contests on several grounds both that this canon applies to SJL, and also distorted diocesan interpretations of the parish charter and by-laws as well as various canons. Also, none of the canons have any provisions regarding merger of an existing parish corporation into another corporate entity in order to perpetuate its existence -- as was undertaken by SJL -- in contrast to dissolution of such a corporation. Use of derogatory terms such as "steal" to describe the parish disaffiliation action are extremely pejorative, inflammatory, and hardly consonant with any claim by Bp. Bennison to be pursuing "reconciliation."
4) The bishop and diocese have not "patiently pursued a mediation process with the parish's leaders." SJL agreed to a mediation process at their request, after which they repeatedly refused to schedule any regular sessions, and then canceled or postponed the few that were scheduled. As a result, only four short meetings (one of which was not a mediation session) took place in a 70-day period, at which they presented no other position than that SJL should agree unilaterally to all of their demands. Similar conduct has occurred with Good Shepherd and All Saints', where Bp. Bennison has requested mediation and then unilaterally canceled it when that was not defined a priori as complete surrender to his demands.
5) Forward in Faith - North America, the nationwide organization of Anglican traditionalists of which Fr. Moyer is president, is not "schismatic" -- indeed, if anything it has bent over backwards (perhaps too much so) to find ways still to remain within ECUSA. Fr. Moyer's supposed deposition has been rejected not only by numerous bishops in the USA, such as Bp. Duncan of Pittsburgh (who has made Fr. Moyer canonically a member of his diocese), but also by bishops abroad, including no less than the recently retired and newly installed Archbishops of Canterbury, George Carey and Rowan Williams -- and Williams is a theological liberal. Furthermore, not only had nothing in the national or diocesan canons "required" Bp. Bennison to depose Fr. Moyer, the deposition was done (as the other bishops above publicly recognized) in clear violation of the canons, which are for deposing a priest who has renounced the communion of ECUSA, not one such as Fr. Moyer who has sought to remain within it. Also, Fr. Moyer did deny the legitimacy of the charges lodged against him as the pretext for his inhibition and subsequent deposition. (Note also Bp. Bennison's patronizing and false pretense to familiarity and friendship in speaking of "David" rather than "Fr. Moyer," which also allows him to avoid having to refer to Fr. Moyer as a priest by title. Remarkably, in court documents filed during the SJL trial in October 2002, Bp. Bennison admitted that Fr. Moyer was both a priest and the rector of Good Shepherd, over a month after Fr. Moyer's putative "deposition.") Likewise, Bp. Bennison's refusal to renew Fr. Rix's license also had no proper canonical or other justification.
6) Contrary to statements made elsewhere by theological revisionists such as Bp. Bennison, heresy and schism are not distinct sins, with tolerance of heresy under the rubrics of "unity" and "diversity" trumping schism as institutional division. Rather, heresy is a form of schism; all schism is a manifestation of either doctrinal heresy, or of pride, judgmentalism, and hardness of heart, by one (sometimes both) sides. Where schism is the visible manifestation and result of heresy, it is the heretics who are schismatic, not the orthodox faithful which Scripture commands to separate from them. The fundamental unity of the church is doctrinal and moral, not institutional, critical though the latter is; the latter is the function and manifestation of the former, and does not and cannot exist without it. (See Point 9B below.)
7) The Church is a corpus mixtum, but again not in the way that Bp. Bennison pretends. We simultaneously are all sinners and saints, with the latter being revealed and shaped out of the former as the new man in Christ supersedes the old man of worldliness in those who surrender themselves unreservedly to Christ. This is not the same thing as defiant justification by unrepentant sinners of sin as not being sin but virtue, which is what Bp. Bennison supports. ("Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! . . . Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!" -- Isaiah 5:20-23.)
8) Ultimately, however, all of the above points are secondary to one single main point -- Bp. Bennison's betrayal of his own office as a bishop. By definition, that office is to preach, practice, and hand down -- unaltered, undiminished, unaugmented, and unimpaired -- the traditional teaching of Christ, as recorded in the Scriptures, preached by the Apostles, and defined by the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils of the undivided patristic Church. By definition, it is absolutely closed to any innovations in fundamental theological and moral doctrines. Instead, Bp. Bennison has openly violated that sacred trust at every turn, even going so far as to claim publicly that "Since the Church wrote the Bible, the Church can rewrite the Bible." He has refused to sign any document or make any public affirmation of belief in traditional Christian doctrine and morals, and openly supports and promotes such anti-Scriptural and anti-patristic practices such as pagan prayer to God as "Mother" rather than "Father," the putative ordination of women bishops and priests, sexual activity outside of marriage, and abortion, and has preached sermons that pervert and even ridicule the plain meaning of Scripture.
The other defining aspect of the episcopal office is pastoral -- the bishop is supposed to care for his clergy and laity in a self-sacrificial manner after the example of Christ and the apostles. Instead, Bp. Bennison has viewed his office in the legalistic terms of a corporate executive or government bureaucrat, whose goal is the possession and exercise of unlimited power for self-aggrandizement. He has acted as a ravening wolf, smiting the shepherds and scattering the sheep. (Cf. Jeremiah 23:1-4, Ezekiel 34:1-31, John 10:1-5, Acts 20:28-31, and Point 9A below.) SJL, Good Shepherd, and All Saints' have all -- in conformity with Scriptural admonitions, patristic church teaching, and Article XXVI of the 39 Articles of the Book of Common Prayer -- refused to receive an episcopal visitation from Bp. Bennison. They do so not because they are Donatists who deny the formal validity of Bp. Bennison's sacramental administrations (note again how Bp. Bennison misrepresents the position of the Donatists as being one merely of objection to a bishop's views, rather than denial of the validity of his orders and sacramental administrations), but because Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition both require faithful orthodox Christians to separate themselves (in charity, not vindictiveness) from an unrepentant heretic -- in the case of clergy, including his teaching and his sacramental acts -- until he is converted from his errors in doctrine and moral conduct.
(Cf. Matthew 7:15 & 10:16-39, Mark 13:22, John 16:1-4, Acts 20:28-31, Romans 16:17-20, I Corinthians 5:1-13 & 10:13-21, II Corinthians 6:14-7:1, Galatians 1:6-10, Ephesians 5:1-13, II Thessalonians 3:6-15, I Timothy 1:5-11 & 6:3-12 & 6:20-21, II Timothy 3:1-4:8, Titus 1:7-16 & 2:7-8 & 3:10-11, II Peter 2:1-3 & 2:17-22, I John 2:18-23 & 4:1-6, II John 7-11, Jude 3-4 & 17-23, Revelation 2:12-29.)
Both Christ and the apostles warned us that in doing so we should be subject to reviling and persecution, and that consequently we should not mourn, but rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for the holy name of Jesus. Sadly, it is clear that our persecutors have a different mind, hold a different religion, and preach and worship a different God, than that set forth in Scripture for the salvation of all, and we pray earnestly for their enlightenment and conversion. (Cf. John 15:18-16:4, Acts 5:41, James 5:16-20, I Peter 3:14-18, I John 3:13.)
9) Finally, here are two pertinent supporting quotations --
A) From a sermon by the saintly 19th c. Anglo-Catholic priest, blessed James DeKoven. The first paragraph describes well the outlook of Bp. Bennison, as opposed to the Scriptural view in the second paragraph. (DeKoven did not envision here the present situation in which church Canons are being willfully framed and interpreted to subvert rather than support
Scripture.) --
"Theoretically the well-trained churchman has a very lofty idea of the Episcopal office -- sometimes an exaggerated notion of it; and yet, while this exists, practically the office is shorn of its real glory. The money-qualified electors choose the Vestry, and the delegates of the Council; the lay delegates have either an actual, or, at any rate, a veto power in the election of a Bishop. It is not surprising that they should feel as if the elected Bishop had simply such powers as may be conferred upon him by the Constitution and Canons of the Church, which they or their pre-decessors have formed, and which at any time may, by due process of law, be altered. Hence, a Bishop's work and duty is whatever the Canons require him to do. He is to ordain, and confirm, and hold visitations. He is to preside at Councils and be the chairman of committees. He is to be the pleasant guest of the chief layman of the parish and advise the clergyman when advice is needed. He is to attend to routine duties without end, and, above all, to be in journeyings often. If he can preach well and talk well, if he is provident and cautious and a good executive officer; if he has personal influence and an untiring physique, if his digestion is unimpaired, his nerves unruffled; if he concentrates himself upon nothing, and diffuses a mild Episcopal perfume over everything, he meets the common theory as to what a bishop ought to be.
"The opposite theory only needs to be stated. He receives the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God. He is bound to be an overseer, to confirm, to ordain, to do all the works I have mentioned. But, above all, he is called to be one upon whose soul the awful burden is laid, to convert men to the obedience of the faith. He must offer the Holy Eucharist; he must preach the Word, he must bind and loose; he must organize; he must, above all things, be a shepherd, a guide, a Father. The Canons of the Church are simply the directions according to which he exercises his office. Wheresoever they do not limit that office, the inherent powers remain; and to convert men to Christ, to be the chief pastor of his Diocese -- this is the Bishop's glory."
B) A pronouncement of the first and second Councils of Constantinople in the time of Archbishop Photius, c. 870-880 A.D. --
"They who separate themselves from communion with their bishop on account of any heresy condemned by the Holy Synods or the Fathers, while he evidently proclaims the heresy publicly, and teaches it with brave front in church -- such persons, in excluding themselves from communion with their so-called bishop before synodical cognizance, not only shall not be subject to canonical censure, but shall even be deemed worthy, by the orthodox, of becoming honor; for they condemn as teachers, not bishops but pseudo-bishops; and they do not cut up the unity of the Church by schism, but hasten to deliver her from schisms and divisions."
Faithfully, James Altena
Sunday, December 15, 2002
A HOMOPHOBIC CONCLUSION, says the bishop.
In the CHURCH TIMES of London (13th Dec.2002) there is printed, next to the Editorial Comment, an essay by the retired Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, a distinguished, caring liberal, under the heading, "Why forgive divorcees but not gays?"
On the basis of my experience in the USA, I have been expecting such an article from a distinguished churchman for the last month, since the recent decision of the C of E on marriage of divorcees in church.
The Bishop welcomes this recent decision of the Synod of the Church of England to allow the marriage of a divorced person (with spouse still alive) to another person (according to guidelines to be supplied by the House of Bishops) in church using the regular church service. He points out that this decision has taken a long time in coming and that it represents a new interpretation of the teaching of Jesus. What was once seen as impossible is now possible, because the statements of Jesus in the Gospels have now been interpreted so as to allow now for this possibility, not to forbid it.
Turning to the question of homosexuality, the Bishop is prepared to accept the traditional interpretation of Paul's words as condemning all forms of homosexuality in his day as expressions of lust. Yet "when two people of the same sex seek to lead a faithful life of mutual love and support" he argues that Paul's teaching does not apply for here they are not motivated by lust but by genuine care for one another, and further they are disposed by nature to seek a same-sex partner. In this case he chooses to call their relation[ship] a handicap rather than a sin. It is a handicap because they cannot procreate children which is a prime aim of matrimony.
He concludes: "I find it very strange that those who condemn all homosexuality do not permit this scriptural hermeneutic, even if they do not hold it themselves, while, at the same time, they are able to permit a hermeneutic that allows the possibility of marriage after divorce. It is hard to avoid a homophobic conclusion."
Of course, what the Bishop is now saying aloud in England has been said in similar ways in the USA for a decade or more. It has been said and continues to be said by both liberals and by evangelicals, catholics and protestants, in the large American denominations and in many seminaries.
In the modern context of the tremendous pressure of the culture of human rights along with that of self-esteem with self-satisfaction, once you loosen the moral law of the Church and, in the name of tolerance or charity, make concessions, it is difficult to know where to stop. In fact, a momentum is generated which, as long as the cultural context remains what it has recently been in the West, will seemingly continue to move on. We are witnessing such a moving on with apparently no signs of slowing down or doing a U-turn.
As a long-time evangelical high churchman (or high-church evangelical), what I continue to find most puzzling is the energy and vehemence of the Evangelical opposition (in USA, Canada and England) to the blessing, approval or even partial approval of same-sex partnerships while, simultaneously the virtual silence of the same Evangelical voice against the modern divorce culture in the churches and its effects. For example, I have heard little in England from Evangelicals against the recent legislation - in fact all the evangelical bishops in synod voted for it. Yet I have heard much against the new Archbishop of Canterbury because he ordained a homosexual person.
One possible reason for this seeming imbalance is that (according to figures supplied by Christianity Today not long ago) the percentage of divorced and remarried people in evangelical churches is amongst the highest for all kinds of churches.
To be scriptural, to be consistent, and to live within the best tradition of the Church of God, it would seem that the modern Church must begin to refuse (under normal conditions) to bless both second marriages (when a previous spouse is still alive) and the claimed faithful partnerships of same-sex couples. To take such action will require tremendous courage, wisdom, patience and mercy.
If there is no change made in the way the Church treats the marrying of heterosexuals persons, then it seems inevitable that all of us within a decade or so will be accepting the unions of homosexuals as normal and acceptable.
Sunday December 15, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
On the basis of my experience in the USA, I have been expecting such an article from a distinguished churchman for the last month, since the recent decision of the C of E on marriage of divorcees in church.
The Bishop welcomes this recent decision of the Synod of the Church of England to allow the marriage of a divorced person (with spouse still alive) to another person (according to guidelines to be supplied by the House of Bishops) in church using the regular church service. He points out that this decision has taken a long time in coming and that it represents a new interpretation of the teaching of Jesus. What was once seen as impossible is now possible, because the statements of Jesus in the Gospels have now been interpreted so as to allow now for this possibility, not to forbid it.
Turning to the question of homosexuality, the Bishop is prepared to accept the traditional interpretation of Paul's words as condemning all forms of homosexuality in his day as expressions of lust. Yet "when two people of the same sex seek to lead a faithful life of mutual love and support" he argues that Paul's teaching does not apply for here they are not motivated by lust but by genuine care for one another, and further they are disposed by nature to seek a same-sex partner. In this case he chooses to call their relation[ship] a handicap rather than a sin. It is a handicap because they cannot procreate children which is a prime aim of matrimony.
He concludes: "I find it very strange that those who condemn all homosexuality do not permit this scriptural hermeneutic, even if they do not hold it themselves, while, at the same time, they are able to permit a hermeneutic that allows the possibility of marriage after divorce. It is hard to avoid a homophobic conclusion."
Of course, what the Bishop is now saying aloud in England has been said in similar ways in the USA for a decade or more. It has been said and continues to be said by both liberals and by evangelicals, catholics and protestants, in the large American denominations and in many seminaries.
In the modern context of the tremendous pressure of the culture of human rights along with that of self-esteem with self-satisfaction, once you loosen the moral law of the Church and, in the name of tolerance or charity, make concessions, it is difficult to know where to stop. In fact, a momentum is generated which, as long as the cultural context remains what it has recently been in the West, will seemingly continue to move on. We are witnessing such a moving on with apparently no signs of slowing down or doing a U-turn.
As a long-time evangelical high churchman (or high-church evangelical), what I continue to find most puzzling is the energy and vehemence of the Evangelical opposition (in USA, Canada and England) to the blessing, approval or even partial approval of same-sex partnerships while, simultaneously the virtual silence of the same Evangelical voice against the modern divorce culture in the churches and its effects. For example, I have heard little in England from Evangelicals against the recent legislation - in fact all the evangelical bishops in synod voted for it. Yet I have heard much against the new Archbishop of Canterbury because he ordained a homosexual person.
One possible reason for this seeming imbalance is that (according to figures supplied by Christianity Today not long ago) the percentage of divorced and remarried people in evangelical churches is amongst the highest for all kinds of churches.
To be scriptural, to be consistent, and to live within the best tradition of the Church of God, it would seem that the modern Church must begin to refuse (under normal conditions) to bless both second marriages (when a previous spouse is still alive) and the claimed faithful partnerships of same-sex couples. To take such action will require tremendous courage, wisdom, patience and mercy.
If there is no change made in the way the Church treats the marrying of heterosexuals persons, then it seems inevitable that all of us within a decade or so will be accepting the unions of homosexuals as normal and acceptable.
Sunday December 15, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Saturday, December 14, 2002
Whatever are the Anglican Books of Homilies?
Do they have authority?
In the Church of England in the sixteenth century sermons could not be preached by every incumbent (rector/vicar of a parish). A licence was needed, for which an M.A. degree (usually from Oxford or Cambridge) was a usual qualification. In The Book of Common Prayer no sermon is scheduled or required in the rubrics at either Morning or Evening Prayer, or with the Litany, but one is required in the Order for the Holy Communion.
When a sermon was not to be preached at Holy Communion, according to the Book of Common Prayer of 1552, "After the Crede, if there be no sermon, shal follow one of the homelies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth by commune auchthoritie." The rubric remains substantially unchanged to the present day in the BCP of the Church of England. It was widely obeyed during the reigns of King Edward VI & Queen Elizabeth I (1559-1604). In fact in the parish churches of Shakespeare's England sermons were heard less frequently than the homilies. They were strongly defended against Puritan attacks in Elizabeth's reign. (The Puritans objected to a minister reading a sermon written by another person.)
The Book of Homilies, as the 1552 rubric states, is in fact two books bound together. The first book of twelve (12) written sermons was published in the reign of Edward VI in 1547, and the second book of twenty-one (21) in the reign of Elizabeth in 1563. Archbishop Cranmer is the major name behind the first book and Bishop Jewel behind the second.
The topics of the first book of homilies are: sin, salvation, justification, faith, good works and the Christian life of faithfulness and obedience.
The topics of the second book of homilies include: Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, Rogationtide, Marriage, Common Prayer, the Sacraments, Idolatry and godly living.
Often a homily was divided into two or three parts and read on consecutive Sundays.
It is surprising that the Homilies have not enriched the language with proverbial phrases as have the Bible and the Prayer Book. This may be partly because most of the homilies are in any case solidly biblical, and secondly perhaps because now that they are so little known we do not recognize every phrase they put into circulation. Shakespeare is said to have derived from them his ideas about the necessity for order and respect for authority.
There is the question as to the authority of the Book(s) of Homilies, which are dependent upon the authority of the formulary we know as The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1562). The other two formularies of the Anglican Way are the BCP and the Ordinal.
In Article XI on Justification we are told that a full exposition of the doctrine is contained in the Homily of Justification, which is Homily III in the First Book. This strongly suggests that to know the doctrine of justification by faith of the Reformed Church of England we need to study this Homily. Thus it has a specific, doctrinal authority.
Article XXXV describes the second Book of Homilies and states that it contains "a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times". Then it refers to the First Book and of both Books says: "We judge them to be read in churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people." This suggests that the Homilies teach and illustrate the worship, doctrine and discipline of the Church of England in a general way and in their essential contents (rather than their rhetorical style and internal organization) are to be received as the doctrine of the Church of England. The emphasis that they be read "diligently and distinctly" is notable for they are not in any way popular sermons.
If an Anglican Province sets aside the Articles of Religion then it would seem that the Homilies have no authority at all for they are dependent on the existence and authority of the Articles. However, in Elizabeth I's day they were required to be used by other personal forms of authority, especially that of the Queen herself.
It would appear that in 2003 the Book of Homilies is no longer in print (according to British Books in print).
It is surely time for a new edition.
And it is surely time for more people of the Anglican Way to become acquainted with them and their teaching.
I am tempted to read them "diligently and distinctly" into a micophone and thus enable them to be put on a couple of so CD's so that people can hear them as they are stuck in their cars in heavy traffic!
Perhaps I should put the homily for Christmas (from Book 2) on to our own little church website in the UK.
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
In the Church of England in the sixteenth century sermons could not be preached by every incumbent (rector/vicar of a parish). A licence was needed, for which an M.A. degree (usually from Oxford or Cambridge) was a usual qualification. In The Book of Common Prayer no sermon is scheduled or required in the rubrics at either Morning or Evening Prayer, or with the Litany, but one is required in the Order for the Holy Communion.
When a sermon was not to be preached at Holy Communion, according to the Book of Common Prayer of 1552, "After the Crede, if there be no sermon, shal follow one of the homelies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth by commune auchthoritie." The rubric remains substantially unchanged to the present day in the BCP of the Church of England. It was widely obeyed during the reigns of King Edward VI & Queen Elizabeth I (1559-1604). In fact in the parish churches of Shakespeare's England sermons were heard less frequently than the homilies. They were strongly defended against Puritan attacks in Elizabeth's reign. (The Puritans objected to a minister reading a sermon written by another person.)
The Book of Homilies, as the 1552 rubric states, is in fact two books bound together. The first book of twelve (12) written sermons was published in the reign of Edward VI in 1547, and the second book of twenty-one (21) in the reign of Elizabeth in 1563. Archbishop Cranmer is the major name behind the first book and Bishop Jewel behind the second.
The topics of the first book of homilies are: sin, salvation, justification, faith, good works and the Christian life of faithfulness and obedience.
The topics of the second book of homilies include: Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, Rogationtide, Marriage, Common Prayer, the Sacraments, Idolatry and godly living.
Often a homily was divided into two or three parts and read on consecutive Sundays.
It is surprising that the Homilies have not enriched the language with proverbial phrases as have the Bible and the Prayer Book. This may be partly because most of the homilies are in any case solidly biblical, and secondly perhaps because now that they are so little known we do not recognize every phrase they put into circulation. Shakespeare is said to have derived from them his ideas about the necessity for order and respect for authority.
There is the question as to the authority of the Book(s) of Homilies, which are dependent upon the authority of the formulary we know as The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1562). The other two formularies of the Anglican Way are the BCP and the Ordinal.
In Article XI on Justification we are told that a full exposition of the doctrine is contained in the Homily of Justification, which is Homily III in the First Book. This strongly suggests that to know the doctrine of justification by faith of the Reformed Church of England we need to study this Homily. Thus it has a specific, doctrinal authority.
Article XXXV describes the second Book of Homilies and states that it contains "a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times". Then it refers to the First Book and of both Books says: "We judge them to be read in churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people." This suggests that the Homilies teach and illustrate the worship, doctrine and discipline of the Church of England in a general way and in their essential contents (rather than their rhetorical style and internal organization) are to be received as the doctrine of the Church of England. The emphasis that they be read "diligently and distinctly" is notable for they are not in any way popular sermons.
If an Anglican Province sets aside the Articles of Religion then it would seem that the Homilies have no authority at all for they are dependent on the existence and authority of the Articles. However, in Elizabeth I's day they were required to be used by other personal forms of authority, especially that of the Queen herself.
It would appear that in 2003 the Book of Homilies is no longer in print (according to British Books in print).
It is surely time for a new edition.
And it is surely time for more people of the Anglican Way to become acquainted with them and their teaching.
I am tempted to read them "diligently and distinctly" into a micophone and thus enable them to be put on a couple of so CD's so that people can hear them as they are stuck in their cars in heavy traffic!
Perhaps I should put the homily for Christmas (from Book 2) on to our own little church website in the UK.
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)