(a discussion starter, from Peter Toon, adapted from a piece by F.P.Harton)
When the individual person takes his part in the celebration of the divine mysteries he is not making his own prayer – he enters into an act of prayer which is going on independently of himself as an individual, because it is the prayer of Christ, our high Priest. Even on earth each Eucharist is not a separate act of worship, but the taking up, in that particular place, of the ceaseless worship of the Church throughout the world, and is one with the worship of the Church Triumphant…
The prayers of the Liturgy are plural, not singular, “we” not “I” (just as our Lord taught us in the fundamental liturgical prayer to say “Our Father”), for they are the prayers of the whole body of Christ. We must realize the universality of the liturgy – that it is not simply the action of the few or many people gathered together in the particular building in which the Eucharist is being celebrated; in the celebration of the holy mysteries that congregation is one with the whole Church, semper et ubique, the barriers of time and space disappear, the faithful are lifted up to the heavenly places, Christ descends upon the holy table, and the Church militant, expectant and triumphant, is one.
In the Liturgy is realized the unity of the Body of Christ, for the Church is an entity; its vital principle is the life of Christ, it is one with him its head, guided by the Holy Ghost. The individual Christian is not an entity, but a member of this unity, a cell of this living organism which is the Church. He has his own spiritual life, which must be lived and developed, but which can never be developed fully apart from the life in the organism.
The collective prayer of the body differs considerably from the separate prayer of the individual, for it is not simply the sum of many individual prayers, but the prayer of an organism which is more than an aggregation of individuals, the prayer of the mystical body of Christ the high Priest.
Attempts are sometimes made to assimilate the prayer of the Liturgy to that of the individual, but such attempts are really misguided. Services of a popular character (using the word “popular” in its best not its cheapest sense) are necessary to the full expression of individual devotion and must exist side by side with the Liturgy, but the two must not be mixed or substituted for one another. A sensitive soul instantly feels that extempore praying and subjective hymn-singing, while eminently right at a prayer meeting, are out of place at the Eucharist, though perhaps he may not be able to say why he feels it. The individualist, on the other hand, wants to find in public prayer the direct expression of his own spiritual condition and needs, and to him therefore the Liturgy seems to be generalized, formal and cold…
The fact is that individual prayer, even when collective, is one thing, and the liturgical prayer of the Church another, and both are necessary. The Liturgy is not concerned with the individual as such; it is the expression of the worship of the body; hence liturgical prayer is essentially and rightly impersonal. The individual is required to sacrifice his individualism in order that he may enter into the fullness of the Body of Christ. Only as he is humble enough to do this does he find out what worship really is. In liturgical worship one is worshipping God the Father in union with the Incarnate Son, and this worship “through Jesus Christ our Lord” is far deeper than the most beautiful offering of our own which we can make to God the Son, because he is offering it in us who are members of his Body.
The liturgical worship of the Church is essentially impersonal, because it is supra-personal, and this impersonality is right. The sacred vestments, so far from doing honor to the individual priest, obscure his personality; he is not longer A.B., but Christ’s deputy. The priest who attempts to use his personality or consciously develops personal eccentricities at the altar is putting himself before his Lord, and so dishonoring him; and the layman who worships merely as an individual is doing, in his own degree, much the same thing.
[Note: the truly corporate Liturgy provided by “The Book of Common Prayer” in its public services is explained and commended by Dr Peter Toon in Worship without Dumbing Down: Knowing God through Liturgy (The Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA, August 2005). It will be available from The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220 for $12.50, postage included, from mid-August.]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Friday, July 29, 2005
SAME-SEX AFFECTION booklet now ready
The 64 page booklet examining the ECUSA teaching on same-sex partnerships is now ready. Call 1-800-727-1928 to order multiple copies.
The RESPONSE to Bishop Griswold & his team concerning “Same-Sex Affection” by Peter Toon is not a repetition of commonly-made arguments against the blessing of homosexual practice made by opponents of active homosexuality and same-sex blessings, but is something different. And what it states is important, worrying & challenging for all Episcopalians and Anglicans, who care about the moral teaching of their Church.
In presenting its long essay, To Set our Hope on Christ, in book-form in June 2005 to the whole Anglican Communion in late June, Presiding Bishop Griswold and his team took a dramatic step. Not only did they publicly demonstrate their belief that covenanted same-sex unions of males or females can be examples of Gospel holiness, but they also demonstrated the theological methods by which they reached this conclusion. That is, they revealed how they approach Scripture and how they do theology, and in so doing how they embrace error and heresy.
The 64 page booklet by Dr Peter Toon – Same-Sex Affection, Holiness and Ordination – responds to the Griswold essay not by discussing homosexuality as such from within such disciplines as biology, anthropology and psychology. Rather, it faces head-on the basic theological methods used by the ECUSA team to come to its conclusions about homosexual partnerships. And, in doing so, it shows just how and why these methods will always produce results that are contrary to received orthodoxy.
So there is a major chapter on the topic of “the development of doctrine,” and the question is faced whether the claim that same-sex couples demonstrate holiness is truly a development or a corruption of doctrine.
Likewise, there is a major chapter on the interpretation of Scripture, and how the ECUSA team uses the data of Scripture as merely being the data of religious experience, to be used along with other data, to come to conclusions contrary both to the common-sense meaning of the text of Scripture and the way it has been understood for centuries.
What the booklet also makes clear is that the theological methods used by the ECUSA to justify and commend same-sex unions are methods which have been gaining ground within the liberal denominations of the USA, and especially within the Episcopal Church, since the 1960’s.
Regrettably, in fact very regrettably, even opponents of the sexual innovations have been using, or at least not opposing, the same methods, in other areas of church life where there has been major innovation in doctrine and practice, liturgy and prayer. However, the adoption by the Episcopal Church of the new doctrines of same-sex partnerships as blessed by God, and active homosexual persons ordained as Ministers, is not unexpected – at least not to those who have been watching how the Episcopal Church has increasingly innovated in doctrine and practice, liturgy and morality, canon law and discipline, over the last forty years!
Same-Sex Affection, Holiness & Ordination. A Response to Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold is published by the Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society on August 5, 2005, and is available from The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128-0220, for $7.50 per copy, postage included. Discounts are available for orders of five or more copies: call 1 – 800 – 727 – 1928 from August 1st.
Be sure to get a copy, or better to get several copies and share them with others.
Let there be a discussion as to how the Bible is read and used in parishes, and how theology is pursued in our colleges and seminaries -- and how this differs from the way It was read and used by earlier generations.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
The RESPONSE to Bishop Griswold & his team concerning “Same-Sex Affection” by Peter Toon is not a repetition of commonly-made arguments against the blessing of homosexual practice made by opponents of active homosexuality and same-sex blessings, but is something different. And what it states is important, worrying & challenging for all Episcopalians and Anglicans, who care about the moral teaching of their Church.
In presenting its long essay, To Set our Hope on Christ, in book-form in June 2005 to the whole Anglican Communion in late June, Presiding Bishop Griswold and his team took a dramatic step. Not only did they publicly demonstrate their belief that covenanted same-sex unions of males or females can be examples of Gospel holiness, but they also demonstrated the theological methods by which they reached this conclusion. That is, they revealed how they approach Scripture and how they do theology, and in so doing how they embrace error and heresy.
The 64 page booklet by Dr Peter Toon – Same-Sex Affection, Holiness and Ordination – responds to the Griswold essay not by discussing homosexuality as such from within such disciplines as biology, anthropology and psychology. Rather, it faces head-on the basic theological methods used by the ECUSA team to come to its conclusions about homosexual partnerships. And, in doing so, it shows just how and why these methods will always produce results that are contrary to received orthodoxy.
So there is a major chapter on the topic of “the development of doctrine,” and the question is faced whether the claim that same-sex couples demonstrate holiness is truly a development or a corruption of doctrine.
Likewise, there is a major chapter on the interpretation of Scripture, and how the ECUSA team uses the data of Scripture as merely being the data of religious experience, to be used along with other data, to come to conclusions contrary both to the common-sense meaning of the text of Scripture and the way it has been understood for centuries.
What the booklet also makes clear is that the theological methods used by the ECUSA to justify and commend same-sex unions are methods which have been gaining ground within the liberal denominations of the USA, and especially within the Episcopal Church, since the 1960’s.
Regrettably, in fact very regrettably, even opponents of the sexual innovations have been using, or at least not opposing, the same methods, in other areas of church life where there has been major innovation in doctrine and practice, liturgy and prayer. However, the adoption by the Episcopal Church of the new doctrines of same-sex partnerships as blessed by God, and active homosexual persons ordained as Ministers, is not unexpected – at least not to those who have been watching how the Episcopal Church has increasingly innovated in doctrine and practice, liturgy and morality, canon law and discipline, over the last forty years!
Same-Sex Affection, Holiness & Ordination. A Response to Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold is published by the Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society on August 5, 2005, and is available from The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128-0220, for $7.50 per copy, postage included. Discounts are available for orders of five or more copies: call 1 – 800 – 727 – 1928 from August 1st.
Be sure to get a copy, or better to get several copies and share them with others.
Let there be a discussion as to how the Bible is read and used in parishes, and how theology is pursued in our colleges and seminaries -- and how this differs from the way It was read and used by earlier generations.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Thursday, July 28, 2005
On appreciating the Old & Good through encounter with its contemporary equivalent
It is reasonably certain that anything composed since the 1970s, and it is highly probable that anything that will be created in the next decade or more, as public liturgies will not compare favorably with the texts of the public services in The Book of Common Prayer (first English edition, 1549; latest USA edition, 1928). That is, will compare in quality as texts to be read aloud as forms of public worship which address God, the Father, in a suitably humble and reverent manner in the Name of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
To make these claims is not to say that it is impossible to worship the eternal and infinite Holy Trinity addressing the Three Persons as “You;” rather, it is to say that developing an excellent form of prayer language in contemporary English is a tremendously difficult task and that the contemporary Church is still a long way from attaining this goal. Thus, if any of us is wholly satisfied with the “You”-language used to address God in modern hymns and liturgies, then he or she has possibly set his/her aim too low, and is probably offering to God something less than the best that is possible.
There is, I believe, great value (for those who address God as “You”) in returning to the classic English texts of prayer and worship such as The Book of Common Prayer and the King James Version of the Bible and The English Hymnal (or another older Hymn Book). Returning, that is, to explore the quality, the style, the content and the doctrine of these texts, and to regain a vision of what it is to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness and in an excellent (yet understandable) form of words.
To assist in this task of visiting and appreciating classic texts, the Prayer Book Society has just published, Worshipping the LORD in the Anglican Way. Traditional Texts and Prayers from “ The Book of Common Prayer” (1928) in Parallel with Functional Equivalents in Contemporary English for Comparison and Study (July 2005).
On one side of the page is the classic text and on the other is a modern equivalent addressing God as “You.” The idea is that people used to modern liturgy will begin with the modern form of the text and then read the classic, and, possibly, see the merits and qualities, as well as style and doctrine, of the classic!
To buy a copy ($12.50 including postage) call 1 – 800- 727-1928 or write to the Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128-0220 Multiple copies available at much reduced price.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
To make these claims is not to say that it is impossible to worship the eternal and infinite Holy Trinity addressing the Three Persons as “You;” rather, it is to say that developing an excellent form of prayer language in contemporary English is a tremendously difficult task and that the contemporary Church is still a long way from attaining this goal. Thus, if any of us is wholly satisfied with the “You”-language used to address God in modern hymns and liturgies, then he or she has possibly set his/her aim too low, and is probably offering to God something less than the best that is possible.
There is, I believe, great value (for those who address God as “You”) in returning to the classic English texts of prayer and worship such as The Book of Common Prayer and the King James Version of the Bible and The English Hymnal (or another older Hymn Book). Returning, that is, to explore the quality, the style, the content and the doctrine of these texts, and to regain a vision of what it is to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness and in an excellent (yet understandable) form of words.
To assist in this task of visiting and appreciating classic texts, the Prayer Book Society has just published, Worshipping the LORD in the Anglican Way. Traditional Texts and Prayers from “ The Book of Common Prayer” (1928) in Parallel with Functional Equivalents in Contemporary English for Comparison and Study (July 2005).
On one side of the page is the classic text and on the other is a modern equivalent addressing God as “You.” The idea is that people used to modern liturgy will begin with the modern form of the text and then read the classic, and, possibly, see the merits and qualities, as well as style and doctrine, of the classic!
To buy a copy ($12.50 including postage) call 1 – 800- 727-1928 or write to the Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128-0220 Multiple copies available at much reduced price.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Why I have been quiet!
July 13, 2005, a message from Peter Toon
I have seemingly been silent for the last month or so. No tracts have gone forth from my computer to my list of friends and interested parties.
The truth of the matter is that I have been working very hard. Now I break my silence as to what I have been doing
First, in preparing sermons for delivery in St Thomas Parish, Houston (to read and to hear them visit the website of the church, www.stthomashouston.org ) ;
Secondly, in re-writing my book of 1992 entitled, Knowing God through the Liturgy. In its new form it will be entitled, Worship without Dumbing Down: Knowing God through Liturgy (Prayer Book Society USA and Edgeways Books UK, late August 2005).
Thirdly, in writing a substantial reply to the book offered to the whole Anglican Communion by the Episcopal Church of the USA in explanation of its latest innovations in sexual relations and ordination. The book, from Bishop Griswold and his team and published by the Episcopal Church, is entitled, TO SET OUR HOPE ON CHRIST, which is based on 1 Peter 1:3 and is, I regret to say, a total misuse of that verse.
My reply is entitled: SAME-SEX AFFECTION, HOLINESS AND ORDINATION. A RESPONSE TO PRESIDING BISHOP FRANK.T GRISWOLD. You may read it on the website of St Thomas Church or on the website of the Prayer Book Society (www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 ) from July 13.
It will be published as a booklet of 64 pages by The Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA in mid-August for $7.50, postage included. There will be special prices for orders of 5 and more. Call 1-800-727-1928 from August lst to order.
I show (a) that the innovatory doctrine of the Episcopal Church is not a genuine development of doctrine, but the very opposite; (b) that its claimed scriptural basis is non-existent; and (c) that the theological method used by the Bishop and his team is of such a kind as to lead to heresies and errors. I appeal to them to reconsider their position and to examine carefully the received teaching of the Catholic Church on chastity, celibacy and marriage, and also to change their theological method, which exalts contemporary “experience”.
The Prayer Book Society hopes that this response will demonstrate to Episcopalians in the USA and to Anglicans overseas that not all those who call themselves Episcopalians or Anglicans in the USA have accepted the innovations in doctrine and morality that the Episcopal Church has adopted since the 1960s. Of these, the doctrines that same-sex affection is holy before God and that persons in same-sex unions may be ordained as priests and consecrated as bishops are but the latest, and, of course, the ones in which the media has the greatest interest.
The Society also hopes that concerned Episcopalians will help to distribute this substantial booklet far and wide as a testimony for Basic Christianity and traditional Christian teaching on sexual relations between male and female. After all, the classic Book of Common Prayer is the Liturgy of Basic Christianity, its faith and morals.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
I have seemingly been silent for the last month or so. No tracts have gone forth from my computer to my list of friends and interested parties.
The truth of the matter is that I have been working very hard. Now I break my silence as to what I have been doing
First, in preparing sermons for delivery in St Thomas Parish, Houston (to read and to hear them visit the website of the church, www.stthomashouston.org ) ;
Secondly, in re-writing my book of 1992 entitled, Knowing God through the Liturgy. In its new form it will be entitled, Worship without Dumbing Down: Knowing God through Liturgy (Prayer Book Society USA and Edgeways Books UK, late August 2005).
Thirdly, in writing a substantial reply to the book offered to the whole Anglican Communion by the Episcopal Church of the USA in explanation of its latest innovations in sexual relations and ordination. The book, from Bishop Griswold and his team and published by the Episcopal Church, is entitled, TO SET OUR HOPE ON CHRIST, which is based on 1 Peter 1:3 and is, I regret to say, a total misuse of that verse.
My reply is entitled: SAME-SEX AFFECTION, HOLINESS AND ORDINATION. A RESPONSE TO PRESIDING BISHOP FRANK.T GRISWOLD. You may read it on the website of St Thomas Church or on the website of the Prayer Book Society (www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 ) from July 13.
It will be published as a booklet of 64 pages by The Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA in mid-August for $7.50, postage included. There will be special prices for orders of 5 and more. Call 1-800-727-1928 from August lst to order.
I show (a) that the innovatory doctrine of the Episcopal Church is not a genuine development of doctrine, but the very opposite; (b) that its claimed scriptural basis is non-existent; and (c) that the theological method used by the Bishop and his team is of such a kind as to lead to heresies and errors. I appeal to them to reconsider their position and to examine carefully the received teaching of the Catholic Church on chastity, celibacy and marriage, and also to change their theological method, which exalts contemporary “experience”.
The Prayer Book Society hopes that this response will demonstrate to Episcopalians in the USA and to Anglicans overseas that not all those who call themselves Episcopalians or Anglicans in the USA have accepted the innovations in doctrine and morality that the Episcopal Church has adopted since the 1960s. Of these, the doctrines that same-sex affection is holy before God and that persons in same-sex unions may be ordained as priests and consecrated as bishops are but the latest, and, of course, the ones in which the media has the greatest interest.
The Society also hopes that concerned Episcopalians will help to distribute this substantial booklet far and wide as a testimony for Basic Christianity and traditional Christian teaching on sexual relations between male and female. After all, the classic Book of Common Prayer is the Liturgy of Basic Christianity, its faith and morals.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Monday, June 27, 2005
Sermons By Peter Toon
Dr Toon is currently serving as interim Rector at St. Thomas' Church in Houston, Texas.
His sermons are available on the Church's website at http://www.stthomashouston.org/sermon.aspx either to read on the web, to download as Word files, to listen to streamed over the web or as a Podcast subscription for listening to on your mP3 player.
--jg
His sermons are available on the Church's website at http://www.stthomashouston.org/sermon.aspx either to read on the web, to download as Word files, to listen to streamed over the web or as a Podcast subscription for listening to on your mP3 player.
--jg
Do Not Read If You Do Not Want To Be Shocked!
What the Episcopal Church is offering to the world.
We all have heard about the current crisis in the Anglican family caused primarily by the recent actions of the American Episcopal Church in the promotion of the doctrine that “same-sex relationships” can be blessed of God, and that those in such partnerships are eligible for ministerial office. At the request of the other provinces of the Communion, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church commissioned a team of theologians to explain this new teaching and practice. This appeared as a book on June 23, 2005, with the title, To Set Our Hope on Christ. I predict that it will horrify and enrage most of the membership of the Communion.
Before I saw this book, I expected with other observers that it would say something like what appears below, which is the usual message of the “Gay” lobby:
1. In the 21st century the Churches of the West have a greater understanding of sexuality as an orientation than they did even in the 20th century.
2. It is clear that God made some people heterosexual and others homosexual in orientation, and thus homosexuality, as an attraction towards the same sex/gender, cannot be wrong in itself, for God does not create evil.
3. States, governments, corporations and councils in the West are beginning to give full rights to persons living in permanent, same-sex partnerships and thereby they provide an example and encouragement to the Church.
4. God is Love, and Love is God, and same-sex affection, in a committed and faithful partnership, is just as much an expression of God’s love as the affection in a heterosexual relationship.
5. Not everyone, in fact only very few, are called inwardly or outwardly to be celibate. Thus to require celibacy of either heterosexual or homosexual people is cruel and causes them unnecessary suffering. Further, if celibacy if required then homosexual persons suffer more than heterosexual ones for they cannot legally marry or live with a member of their own sex.
6. Since God is Love, and Love is God, the Church of God must be inclusive and thus offer a full place and participation to homosexual persons, just as they are.
7. Over the centuries the Church has demonstrated prejudice and injustice towards both minorities and women, and the latest such prejudice is against men and women with a homosexual orientation. With time and patience such prejudices are dissolved.
8. The ECUSA has recognized the rights of divorced persons to be married a second and even third time in church and thereby has set a precedent for the right of same-sex couples to receive a blessing on their partnerships.
9. The ECUSA has recognized that the primary purpose of marriage is companionship and not procreation, and this opens the door for the acceptance of the companionship of faithful, long-term same-sex partnerships.
10. A Church which opposes the rights of homosexual persons, who are in committed partnerships, to full participation in its life and ministry, will be shown to be increasingly irrelevant as the 21st century progresses.
On reading the book carefully, I was surprised by its style and content. Most of the themes stated above are to be found there in one way or another; however the whole approach is not combative (homosexual persons fighting for their rights) but educative. The reader is invited to come and see “what the Lord has done and is doing amongst us” in the Episcopal Church.
What does it say? It makes the amazing claim that within the Episcopal Church there has been a major discovery from the Bible and Christian experience, and, further, that this discovery has led to an important development of doctrine, like certain epoch-making developments of the past (e.g., the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church without first submitting to practices from Judaism – see Acts 10-15). The discovery is that two persons of the same sex can live together in Christian holiness and be true examples of Christian faith, hope and love; and the doctrine is that it is right to bless such partnerships and to call persons from them into positions of leadership in the Church. In so doing, the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit to set aside the tradition of Christian teaching from the past, which classed homosexual activity as sinful fornication, offensive to Almighty God.
My judgment is that the whole edifice of the book is built on arguments that have a shaky and sandy foundation. I am writing a full length reply to it which should be published by September lst. We will keep you posted! Meanwhile, Lord have mercy upon us – all of us!
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon, Interim Rector, St. Thomas' Church, Houston, Texas.
Written for The Epistle, the newsletter of St. Thomas' Church
We all have heard about the current crisis in the Anglican family caused primarily by the recent actions of the American Episcopal Church in the promotion of the doctrine that “same-sex relationships” can be blessed of God, and that those in such partnerships are eligible for ministerial office. At the request of the other provinces of the Communion, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church commissioned a team of theologians to explain this new teaching and practice. This appeared as a book on June 23, 2005, with the title, To Set Our Hope on Christ. I predict that it will horrify and enrage most of the membership of the Communion.
Before I saw this book, I expected with other observers that it would say something like what appears below, which is the usual message of the “Gay” lobby:
1. In the 21st century the Churches of the West have a greater understanding of sexuality as an orientation than they did even in the 20th century.
2. It is clear that God made some people heterosexual and others homosexual in orientation, and thus homosexuality, as an attraction towards the same sex/gender, cannot be wrong in itself, for God does not create evil.
3. States, governments, corporations and councils in the West are beginning to give full rights to persons living in permanent, same-sex partnerships and thereby they provide an example and encouragement to the Church.
4. God is Love, and Love is God, and same-sex affection, in a committed and faithful partnership, is just as much an expression of God’s love as the affection in a heterosexual relationship.
5. Not everyone, in fact only very few, are called inwardly or outwardly to be celibate. Thus to require celibacy of either heterosexual or homosexual people is cruel and causes them unnecessary suffering. Further, if celibacy if required then homosexual persons suffer more than heterosexual ones for they cannot legally marry or live with a member of their own sex.
6. Since God is Love, and Love is God, the Church of God must be inclusive and thus offer a full place and participation to homosexual persons, just as they are.
7. Over the centuries the Church has demonstrated prejudice and injustice towards both minorities and women, and the latest such prejudice is against men and women with a homosexual orientation. With time and patience such prejudices are dissolved.
8. The ECUSA has recognized the rights of divorced persons to be married a second and even third time in church and thereby has set a precedent for the right of same-sex couples to receive a blessing on their partnerships.
9. The ECUSA has recognized that the primary purpose of marriage is companionship and not procreation, and this opens the door for the acceptance of the companionship of faithful, long-term same-sex partnerships.
10. A Church which opposes the rights of homosexual persons, who are in committed partnerships, to full participation in its life and ministry, will be shown to be increasingly irrelevant as the 21st century progresses.
On reading the book carefully, I was surprised by its style and content. Most of the themes stated above are to be found there in one way or another; however the whole approach is not combative (homosexual persons fighting for their rights) but educative. The reader is invited to come and see “what the Lord has done and is doing amongst us” in the Episcopal Church.
What does it say? It makes the amazing claim that within the Episcopal Church there has been a major discovery from the Bible and Christian experience, and, further, that this discovery has led to an important development of doctrine, like certain epoch-making developments of the past (e.g., the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church without first submitting to practices from Judaism – see Acts 10-15). The discovery is that two persons of the same sex can live together in Christian holiness and be true examples of Christian faith, hope and love; and the doctrine is that it is right to bless such partnerships and to call persons from them into positions of leadership in the Church. In so doing, the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit to set aside the tradition of Christian teaching from the past, which classed homosexual activity as sinful fornication, offensive to Almighty God.
My judgment is that the whole edifice of the book is built on arguments that have a shaky and sandy foundation. I am writing a full length reply to it which should be published by September lst. We will keep you posted! Meanwhile, Lord have mercy upon us – all of us!
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon, Interim Rector, St. Thomas' Church, Houston, Texas.
Written for The Epistle, the newsletter of St. Thomas' Church
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Fleeing from the ECUSA – a moral duty?
Considerations from Peter Toon
Two respected graduates of Nashotah House have recently joined hands (in Fr Kim’s List) to speak of the apostasy & madness of the Episcopal Church and of the moral duty for all members, priests and laity, who desire to be biblically orthodox to leave this Church immediately – for the salvation of their souls and the true welfare of their families. Fr Kimel is joining the R C Church and Fr Edwards has already joined the Anglican Province of Christ the King (a continuing Church dating from 1977). We should most certainly respect and support them in their convictions and new ecclesial relations.
May I first establish my credentials to disagree with parts of what they say. I think I can say that I have, as clearly as anyone, pointed out in several books and many tracts, essays and articles, the apostasy of the ECUSA as an institution, which began seriously in the late 1970s when this Church rejected the historical Formularies of the Anglican Way (the classic BCP, Ordinal and Articles) and put in their place the mixed content of the 1979 Prayer Book. Further, like Fr K & Fr E I have been ready to stand up for what I have asserted and to take the consequences.
Let me state first of all that each of us is called to follow an informed conscience. The informed conscience is the voice of God in the soul and is to be obeyed. Thus Fr K & Fr E (and others like them) had to follow their conscience, and, in this particular case, flee to a “denomination” where they believed they can be embraced in the arms of Mother Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God. Like St Augustine, in his sermons to catechumens, they believe that you cannot have God as your Father in heaven unless you have the Catholic Church as your mother on earth.
So far so good.
But…. And here I offer some considerations which cause me to take a different line to that of these two respected priests. My position is that it is appropriate for some to stay within the ECUSA, but only if they are truly aware of what they are doing and why, the greater glory of God is their motivation, and thus they are ready to face persecution and deprivation. Each must follow not his opinion but rather his informed conscience. I offer these considerations simply to show how one’s conscience may be informed in ways different from others and therefore those prompted by conscience may take differing stances.
AND SO ON…. But the above will suffice to make the point that an informed godly conscience can speak a different word than Fr K & Fr Edwards both heard. God sees everyone and everything; but our sight and understanding are so limited and poor. Thus let us in charity pray one for another, and not be quick to judge the motives of others who act differently than we think they should do so.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon June 16, 2005
Two respected graduates of Nashotah House have recently joined hands (in Fr Kim’s List) to speak of the apostasy & madness of the Episcopal Church and of the moral duty for all members, priests and laity, who desire to be biblically orthodox to leave this Church immediately – for the salvation of their souls and the true welfare of their families. Fr Kimel is joining the R C Church and Fr Edwards has already joined the Anglican Province of Christ the King (a continuing Church dating from 1977). We should most certainly respect and support them in their convictions and new ecclesial relations.
May I first establish my credentials to disagree with parts of what they say. I think I can say that I have, as clearly as anyone, pointed out in several books and many tracts, essays and articles, the apostasy of the ECUSA as an institution, which began seriously in the late 1970s when this Church rejected the historical Formularies of the Anglican Way (the classic BCP, Ordinal and Articles) and put in their place the mixed content of the 1979 Prayer Book. Further, like Fr K & Fr E I have been ready to stand up for what I have asserted and to take the consequences.
Let me state first of all that each of us is called to follow an informed conscience. The informed conscience is the voice of God in the soul and is to be obeyed. Thus Fr K & Fr E (and others like them) had to follow their conscience, and, in this particular case, flee to a “denomination” where they believed they can be embraced in the arms of Mother Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God. Like St Augustine, in his sermons to catechumens, they believe that you cannot have God as your Father in heaven unless you have the Catholic Church as your mother on earth.
So far so good.
But…. And here I offer some considerations which cause me to take a different line to that of these two respected priests. My position is that it is appropriate for some to stay within the ECUSA, but only if they are truly aware of what they are doing and why, the greater glory of God is their motivation, and thus they are ready to face persecution and deprivation. Each must follow not his opinion but rather his informed conscience. I offer these considerations simply to show how one’s conscience may be informed in ways different from others and therefore those prompted by conscience may take differing stances.
1. What these two priests provide as reasons for immediate departure are utterly convincing to them and because of this, they appear to them, as it were, universal principles, that contain a moral imperative for all. So what has convinced them and guided their consciences, they believe also ought to convince and guide others. However, other godly consciences are informed by related but not identical norms and information, and thus they do not speak with the same non-negotiable voice on this matter. And why this is so one can easily, I believe, see from what is written below…. Please Read on, remembering these are considerations not absolute rules to follow.
2. The church situation in the U.S.A. is most complicated. There is what I have often called the massive supermarket of religions and in this market are many small Anglican denominations/jurisdictions. It is one thing to leave ECUSA, it is another to have a common mind where to go. Thus if one in conscience decides to leave but remain an Anglican, then the choice as to where to go next is not easy but complicated. And the more one learns about the struggles, difficulties, tribulations and aspirations of the various Anglican groups (30 or so) across the nation, the more one is aware of the difficulty of this choice.
3. Further, to flee to Rome is not an option for an Anglican who is schooled in the classic Anglican Formularies and accepts the Reformed Catholicism of the Anglican Way. Rome teaches and requires certain dogmas and doctrines, rites and ceremonies, which to the Anglican go far beyond what Scripture teaches or allows. Informed Conscience forbids this route, even when the mind sees the “attraction” of the Roman route.
4. Although a consecrated church (the kyriakon of the Lord) is in the last analysis only a building, it is a sacred building & it is the Lord’s building. Of course, worship can be held anywhere for God is a Spirit but what has been consecrated to the Lord should not easily be turned over to a “liturgy” that is contrary to the foundation and
history of the Lord’s temple/house. Further, and this can be most important, when there is attached to the Church say a school or some other important local ministry, to leave it all is a very major decision indeed, for without a building a school cannot exist and without suitable property other ministries cannot function.
5. There is in the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA a very strong tradition of a congregationalism/parochialism in the sense that the Polity of the PECUSA was more from the parish to the diocese rather than from the diocese to the parish. Strong centralization is a modern phenomenon and was unknown in the colonial period and not prominent in the two centuries afterwards. Thus it is possible (as an emergency kind of position) in some circumstances to recover a certain parochialism in order to safeguard the Gospel and keep holy property locally.
6. It is possible for a parish to make it clear --- though not to proclaim it from the housetops --- that it is not in communion with obviously heretical and immoral bishops and that it will not allow them into its holy temple, the kyriakon.
7. It is possible for a parish to decide that certain local compromises are needed in order to preserve the essentials of Anglican Faith and Practice. One will be how money is allocated – e.g., none to NYC headquarters of ECUSA but some to the diocese. In the complex situation of American religion, to be 60 per cent of what one knows one ought to be, to be aware of failure and confess it, and to be striving to be more conformed to God’s plan are probably good reasons for staying put and not fleeing.
8. In the Church the wheat and the tares grow in the same field and they are not separated until the harvest. No church is perfect and good people testify to real problems in all churches. Thus one may stay until it is, locally, truly impossible to stay and remain aspiring orthodox believers.
9. In 2005, there is more concern about the ECUSA, its apostasy and the plight of its would-be orthodox members, in the Anglican Communion of Churches than ever before and this provides a possibility that overseas influence will, in some ways (yet to be made clear) effect positive change in the ECUSA. It is by no means sure that overseas influence will bring real help but it is possibly worth waiting to see what happens, if this is locally possible.
10. It is a possibility – though only a dim one right now – that the so-called “Network” could become, by the general agreement of the Lambeth Conference of 2008, the beginnings of a new orthodox Anglican Province in North America. The Network will itself have to become truly orthodox itself, including the recovery of the classic and historic Anglican Formularies and making the 1979 Prayer Book into a “Book of Alternative Services.” Again this provides a possible reason for waiting and witnessing.
11. There is the biblical doctrine of “the remnant” which by grace remains faithful (or as faithful as possible) when there is general apostasy. Humbly to aspire to be so is probably a good thing, but it must be humbly while being aware that the judgment of God is upon all, including the remnant ( see the OT for many examples).
AND SO ON…. But the above will suffice to make the point that an informed godly conscience can speak a different word than Fr K & Fr Edwards both heard. God sees everyone and everything; but our sight and understanding are so limited and poor. Thus let us in charity pray one for another, and not be quick to judge the motives of others who act differently than we think they should do so.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon June 16, 2005
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Spirituality – not necessarily a good thing!
A sanctification starter! By Peter Toon
Spirituality today (inside and outside churches) may well not be Christian, may well be pantheist or “eastern mysticism”, or may well be secularist. The cultivation of the human spirit in a “religious” direction, whatever that direction may be, is rarely if ever a sure sign of seeking after God the Father through Jesus Christ. However, in some cases it may perhaps be guided and helped to become such a search, for those who truly seek and search shall find, said Jesus.
The teaching of the New Testament is that the whole man, body and soul together, is called to know God, to love and serve him. The soul certainly includes the mind, heart, will and spirit; and the soul and the body together constitute the human being, who is made in the image and after the likeness of God. While the point of contact, as it were, with the Spirit of the Lord in the human person is the spirit, the relation with God the Father does not consist solely in a relation of spirit with Spirit; rather, it is a relation of a person, having body and soul, with the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost. Further, this person is united to others in the one Body of Christ and the one Household of God.
Thus to speak today of Christian spirituality may not be wise. An older meaning of “spirituality” used by theologians in the 17th century is “the sphere where the Spirit of the Lord engages with the human spirit” and by this they meant via the means of grace, such as prayer (private and public), sacraments, preaching & teaching, meditation and contemplation and so on. In these spheres there can be communion with God and growth in maturity of faith, hope and love. This old Christian usage is probably and sadly not recoverable by the churches in the present context of a multi-religious & multi-faith secular society, as well as a secularized church. For “spirituality” has been so filled with alien themes that as a word and as an activity for Christians it is best set aside and not pursued.
Today, we need to emphasize that God the Father has actually searched for us and found us and opened the way for us to know him through the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Holy Ghost. When we allow ourselves to be found by him and we submit to him, then he asks for the whole of us, body and soul, and he begins the work of making us holy and pure in body and soul. For his plan is to redeem his children and this means not only the sanctification of the soul but also of the body, through the inner work of the Holy Ghost; and at the End by the resurrection of the dead and the granting of life everlasting, with the beatific vision, and the pleasures of the new Jerusalem.
Traditional Anglicans will of course recognize that the sanctification and then redemption of both body and soul of God's people is clearly taught not only within the New Testament, but also within the Order for Holy Communion and in the Collects of The Book of Common Prayer (1662 & 1928).
June 15, 2005
P.S. In 1989 I published WHAT IS SPIRITUALITY? And is it for me? (Darton, Longman &Todd, England). In that book I made a big effort to make “spirituality” work as a Christian vocation with a Christian meaning. I probably failed. Sixteen years on I think that one is better served by using the historic words of the Christian tradition that are firmly planted in the biblical revelation and the creedal & liturgical tradition of the Church.
“So far is Christianity from an unqualified approval of pure spirituality that it teaches that the spiritual realm, no less than the material realm, has fallen into sin and has rebelled against its Creator. Indeed, in the New Testament evil spirits seem at first sight to be more in evidence than good ones. No doubt this is because the activity of good spirits is so perfectly integrated into the activity of God himself that it does not often need to be distinguished from it. But at least the fact remains that the New Testament has no confidence in spirituality as such. The early Church knew full well, as the Church in many parts of the world knows today, that religion can be very spiritual and very evil; this all depends on whom it worships and how it worships it/her/him. The worship which the angels offer to God is purely spiritual, but so is the worship devils offer to Beelzebub. Amongst humans, devil worship is about as spiritual as a religion could be. And anyone who was tempted to suppose that spirituality as such is good should be well advised to meditate on Dr. C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters.” [Eric Mascall]
Spirituality today (inside and outside churches) may well not be Christian, may well be pantheist or “eastern mysticism”, or may well be secularist. The cultivation of the human spirit in a “religious” direction, whatever that direction may be, is rarely if ever a sure sign of seeking after God the Father through Jesus Christ. However, in some cases it may perhaps be guided and helped to become such a search, for those who truly seek and search shall find, said Jesus.
The teaching of the New Testament is that the whole man, body and soul together, is called to know God, to love and serve him. The soul certainly includes the mind, heart, will and spirit; and the soul and the body together constitute the human being, who is made in the image and after the likeness of God. While the point of contact, as it were, with the Spirit of the Lord in the human person is the spirit, the relation with God the Father does not consist solely in a relation of spirit with Spirit; rather, it is a relation of a person, having body and soul, with the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost. Further, this person is united to others in the one Body of Christ and the one Household of God.
Thus to speak today of Christian spirituality may not be wise. An older meaning of “spirituality” used by theologians in the 17th century is “the sphere where the Spirit of the Lord engages with the human spirit” and by this they meant via the means of grace, such as prayer (private and public), sacraments, preaching & teaching, meditation and contemplation and so on. In these spheres there can be communion with God and growth in maturity of faith, hope and love. This old Christian usage is probably and sadly not recoverable by the churches in the present context of a multi-religious & multi-faith secular society, as well as a secularized church. For “spirituality” has been so filled with alien themes that as a word and as an activity for Christians it is best set aside and not pursued.
Today, we need to emphasize that God the Father has actually searched for us and found us and opened the way for us to know him through the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Holy Ghost. When we allow ourselves to be found by him and we submit to him, then he asks for the whole of us, body and soul, and he begins the work of making us holy and pure in body and soul. For his plan is to redeem his children and this means not only the sanctification of the soul but also of the body, through the inner work of the Holy Ghost; and at the End by the resurrection of the dead and the granting of life everlasting, with the beatific vision, and the pleasures of the new Jerusalem.
Traditional Anglicans will of course recognize that the sanctification and then redemption of both body and soul of God's people is clearly taught not only within the New Testament, but also within the Order for Holy Communion and in the Collects of The Book of Common Prayer (1662 & 1928).
Almighty God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardly in our souls; that we may be defended against all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
June 15, 2005
P.S. In 1989 I published WHAT IS SPIRITUALITY? And is it for me? (Darton, Longman &Todd, England). In that book I made a big effort to make “spirituality” work as a Christian vocation with a Christian meaning. I probably failed. Sixteen years on I think that one is better served by using the historic words of the Christian tradition that are firmly planted in the biblical revelation and the creedal & liturgical tradition of the Church.
Loving God
Reflections from Dr. Peter Toon
All types of Christians appear to believe that there is a duty laid upon us all to love others, especially those in need. Yet in this agreement there is disagreement as to what precisely it meant by “loving one’s neighbor as oneself.”
In contrast, there is no agreement that there is a duty – at least on this earth – for Christians to love God. Some say that all we can achieve in this world is to believe in God and to trust him. Others say that Love is God and that in being loving to anyone on this earth we are loving God.
Perhaps the insights of St Bernard of Clairvaux can help us. In his little book on the love of God [De Diligendo Dei], he offers us a somewhat stylized scheme (to help us remember) of four stages in the growth in loving God; but the truth in it is profound and well worth pondering.
Self for self; God for self; God for God & self for God.
One advantage, amongst others, of this scheme is that it integrates eros and agape, by seeing the latter as a fulfillment of the former. That is, it begins where each of us is at the beginning – outside the direct influence of the means of grace and traces our path into the ecstasy of being overwhelmed by the Love that unites the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. ( See further C.S.Lewis, The Four Loves. ) And it leads us on to where we are called to be – loving God both for WHO he is, and in union with him by the Spirit, sharing in his perfect loving of his creatures and people.
Too many of us, I regret to state, seem to be permanently in stage 2, loving God only because he is the One whom we need to live fulfilled or satisfactory lives. I suspect (and if I am wrong, God forgive me) that our modern dumbed-down worship services actually seek to place people and keep them in stage 2!
Trinity III, 2005
All types of Christians appear to believe that there is a duty laid upon us all to love others, especially those in need. Yet in this agreement there is disagreement as to what precisely it meant by “loving one’s neighbor as oneself.”
In contrast, there is no agreement that there is a duty – at least on this earth – for Christians to love God. Some say that all we can achieve in this world is to believe in God and to trust him. Others say that Love is God and that in being loving to anyone on this earth we are loving God.
Perhaps the insights of St Bernard of Clairvaux can help us. In his little book on the love of God [De Diligendo Dei], he offers us a somewhat stylized scheme (to help us remember) of four stages in the growth in loving God; but the truth in it is profound and well worth pondering.
Self for self; God for self; God for God & self for God.
- The place where all of us begin is the loving of one’s self. However, in this position a man will come to realize for all kinds of reasons, not least the good of human life together in community, that he must have some love for his neighbor. And, in seeking to fulfill this obligation, he will recognize that without God’s help he cannot really begin to live a meaningful life and care for his fellow man. Though he does not know this the image of God in man is marred by sin and thus functions only imperfectly at this stage; but yet it is the means of inner awakening and desire for God through Christ.
- As soon as the man (baptized Christian) begins to understand the need of God for the satisfactory conduct of his life, then he will begin to love God. However, he will be loving God not for God’s sake but for his own, for the help that he needs and receives from God to live a reasonably satisfactory life. And, regrettably, this stage of loving God can be as far as he progresses in the Christian life, even as he prays, attends church and seeks to keep God’s commandments.
- In loving God for what he gives and provides, a man may begin (through the influence of the means of grace) to see that God as the LORD is supremely lovable in his Being, Nature, Attributes, Revelation, Reconciliation and Redemption. That is he is supremely lovable not primarily for what he bestows, but for who he really is towards his creatures and for his amazing Beauty and Glory. In progressing to this state, the baptized believer does not cease to love God for his blessings and gifts. Rather, there is joined to this loving a deeper loving which adores God for who he is. It is a loving of the Father through the love of the Son and with the love provided by the Holy Ghost. And, it is never individualistic for it is always personal but within the koinonia, the fellowship, of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
- The fourth stage, which cannot be wholly fulfilled in this life, is when a man loves himself only for the sake of God. That is, he participates free of all selfishness, in the love of God towards his creatures and thus specifically towards himself. And this loving can only be fully known and experienced when the Christian is redeemed, that is when he is perfected and glorified in his resurrection body and a member of the heavenly Jerusalem. That is, when he is fully restored in the image and likeness of God, and being such, he is perfectly appreciative of, as well as a channel of, the love of God and so he loves in the name of God, the Holy Trinity, what God loves. And he does so through, in and with Christ who is the perfect Image of God and the One Mediator between God and man.
One advantage, amongst others, of this scheme is that it integrates eros and agape, by seeing the latter as a fulfillment of the former. That is, it begins where each of us is at the beginning – outside the direct influence of the means of grace and traces our path into the ecstasy of being overwhelmed by the Love that unites the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. ( See further C.S.Lewis, The Four Loves. ) And it leads us on to where we are called to be – loving God both for WHO he is, and in union with him by the Spirit, sharing in his perfect loving of his creatures and people.
Too many of us, I regret to state, seem to be permanently in stage 2, loving God only because he is the One whom we need to live fulfilled or satisfactory lives. I suspect (and if I am wrong, God forgive me) that our modern dumbed-down worship services actually seek to place people and keep them in stage 2!
Trinity III, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Was Jesus an “individual”?
A discussion Starter from Peter Toon
There was a time when the word “individual” was only an adjective and referred to one specific thing –e.g., an individual drop of rain, or an individual flavor/ texture of a fruit, or an individual person, or an individual page of a book, and so on . Now it is increasingly used as a noun for a human being, often to indicate a single human being as one unit of a community or society and distinct from all other “individuals.” Also it may be used to indicate a specific human being as having a uniqueness and thus different from all others – “John is a real individual.”
There have been many objections during the last century or so to the use of the word as a synonym for a single human being, especially where no contrast between one human being and others is implied. For example, take, “Three individuals were placed under arrest,” or “The local Mayor will make time for any individual who wants to talk to her/him.” In these cases, some argue (rightly, I judge) that it is better to use the nouns “people” or “person.”
In fact, it is probably the case that the use of “individual” for “person” increased in the cold war years when the West was standing against the collectivism of communism. It became the fashion to speak of the importance of the individual person (which became quickly “the individual” and thus achieved a kind of sanctity as a word).
For Christians, Jesus is unique, and not merely in one aspect, but in many. He alone is God become man without ceasing to be God. He alone as a man lived a totally perfect life of love for others. He alone is the One Mediator between God the Father and the human race. And so on.
The Church of God in her official dogma and doctrine has spoken of him as “One Person made known in Two Natures, Divine and Human “ (Council of Chalcedon, 451; and the Athanasian Creed from 5th century). Although the word “individual” can be used of him as an adjective (e.g., “ as distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost, he is an individual Person, even though he has the one identical Nature with the Father and the Holy Ghost”), it is not wise at all to use “individual” as a noun of him. Certainly, as the Messiah and Saviour, he stands apart from all others of the human race, but he is not an “individual” in the modern sense, for he is a corporate man, a representative man, the new Israel, and the second and new Adam. That is, he is totally bound by God’s design and covenant to those whom he came to identify with and save. He is a Person who in his Personhood is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Also in this same Personhood he is one with the human race for he is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human. Through his human nature he is one with mankind and especially so with the elect.
This being so, holy mother church has guided her members to speak of human beings also as persons, that is, persons with one nature, human, and with a unique human personality, rooted in that human nature, which is made in the image and after the likeness of God. (see e.g., in the classic editions of The Book of Common Prayer where candidates for baptism are called “persons”).
So it is not wise for the Church or preachers or Christian teachers to use the word “individual” as a noun to refer to a person made in the image and after the likeness of God. For, properly speaking, though each of us is an individual person, we are not strictly individualities, for we are united in the order of nature by blood and genes with our families/kith and kin and in the order of grace we are united with the members of the Body of Christ, who are our brethren for eternity! And as made in the image of God we reflect in our personhoods the tri-Personal Nature of God. Certainly each of us has to respond to God’s word and grace and this is an individual action, but it is the action of an individual person not an “individual.”
And, further, if we do insist on using it as a noun of a precious human being, then we need to be sure that we use it only in order to make a contrast which is both reasonable and is in accord with the basic Christian view of man/humanity. Perhaps it is best to avoid the word altogether as a noun for we do after all have other words to use. [Try going a week without using the word as a noun for a human being.]
Of course, we live in a society where “individualism” is rife and where the declared rights of “individuals” and the self-worth of “individuals: is taken for granted. The basis of this type of post-Enlightenment thinking is that the basic unit of any society is “the individual” and by the free choice of “individuals” a society or even church is formed. By voluntary association distinct “individuals” choose to create together a unit, or society, or church or whatever.
Christianity has a very different view – at least in its biblical theology, which knows no individualism as such. The primary unit is on the one side the representative Man (Adam and then Christ) in whom is contained the race of man or the elect of God, and on the other the family (be it the so-called extended family, or the tribe, or in Israel, the twelve tribes as One). Any member of these unities is an individual member or person but not an individual as such.
In the Church a person is baptized not only into union with Christ himself but also simultaneously into his Body, and thus each baptized believer is one member united to many members. And each member is an individual person, an individual Christian, not an individual in isolation! By Christian nurture and education, the Church seeks to make each of us aware that while we are individual persons with individual responsibility we are nevertheless not isolated units for we are inter-related. Rather, we are related units and we find our fulfillment and vocation in rightful unions and associations and vocations with others! Our individual talents are by the grace of God used for the common good and to fulfill duties to family, community, nation and local church.
Jesus was not an individual in his earthly ministry and in heaven now as our King, Priest and Prophet, he is not an individual, even though he possesses human nature perfected and glorified. He is a Person, an unique Person but a Person, eternally related to the Father and the Holy Ghost in Love in the Holy Trinity. We who are his brethren, because adopted by his Father as his children, are likewise not individuals but persons, each of us (by grace alone) having a personal relation with the Father, through and in Jesus. Thus we avoid and reject modern individualism for we belong to the fellowship and communion of the saints in glory.
June 14, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
A friend responds –
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
There was a time when the word “individual” was only an adjective and referred to one specific thing –e.g., an individual drop of rain, or an individual flavor/ texture of a fruit, or an individual person, or an individual page of a book, and so on . Now it is increasingly used as a noun for a human being, often to indicate a single human being as one unit of a community or society and distinct from all other “individuals.” Also it may be used to indicate a specific human being as having a uniqueness and thus different from all others – “John is a real individual.”
There have been many objections during the last century or so to the use of the word as a synonym for a single human being, especially where no contrast between one human being and others is implied. For example, take, “Three individuals were placed under arrest,” or “The local Mayor will make time for any individual who wants to talk to her/him.” In these cases, some argue (rightly, I judge) that it is better to use the nouns “people” or “person.”
In fact, it is probably the case that the use of “individual” for “person” increased in the cold war years when the West was standing against the collectivism of communism. It became the fashion to speak of the importance of the individual person (which became quickly “the individual” and thus achieved a kind of sanctity as a word).
For Christians, Jesus is unique, and not merely in one aspect, but in many. He alone is God become man without ceasing to be God. He alone as a man lived a totally perfect life of love for others. He alone is the One Mediator between God the Father and the human race. And so on.
The Church of God in her official dogma and doctrine has spoken of him as “One Person made known in Two Natures, Divine and Human “ (Council of Chalcedon, 451; and the Athanasian Creed from 5th century). Although the word “individual” can be used of him as an adjective (e.g., “ as distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost, he is an individual Person, even though he has the one identical Nature with the Father and the Holy Ghost”), it is not wise at all to use “individual” as a noun of him. Certainly, as the Messiah and Saviour, he stands apart from all others of the human race, but he is not an “individual” in the modern sense, for he is a corporate man, a representative man, the new Israel, and the second and new Adam. That is, he is totally bound by God’s design and covenant to those whom he came to identify with and save. He is a Person who in his Personhood is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Also in this same Personhood he is one with the human race for he is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human. Through his human nature he is one with mankind and especially so with the elect.
This being so, holy mother church has guided her members to speak of human beings also as persons, that is, persons with one nature, human, and with a unique human personality, rooted in that human nature, which is made in the image and after the likeness of God. (see e.g., in the classic editions of The Book of Common Prayer where candidates for baptism are called “persons”).
So it is not wise for the Church or preachers or Christian teachers to use the word “individual” as a noun to refer to a person made in the image and after the likeness of God. For, properly speaking, though each of us is an individual person, we are not strictly individualities, for we are united in the order of nature by blood and genes with our families/kith and kin and in the order of grace we are united with the members of the Body of Christ, who are our brethren for eternity! And as made in the image of God we reflect in our personhoods the tri-Personal Nature of God. Certainly each of us has to respond to God’s word and grace and this is an individual action, but it is the action of an individual person not an “individual.”
And, further, if we do insist on using it as a noun of a precious human being, then we need to be sure that we use it only in order to make a contrast which is both reasonable and is in accord with the basic Christian view of man/humanity. Perhaps it is best to avoid the word altogether as a noun for we do after all have other words to use. [Try going a week without using the word as a noun for a human being.]
Of course, we live in a society where “individualism” is rife and where the declared rights of “individuals” and the self-worth of “individuals: is taken for granted. The basis of this type of post-Enlightenment thinking is that the basic unit of any society is “the individual” and by the free choice of “individuals” a society or even church is formed. By voluntary association distinct “individuals” choose to create together a unit, or society, or church or whatever.
Christianity has a very different view – at least in its biblical theology, which knows no individualism as such. The primary unit is on the one side the representative Man (Adam and then Christ) in whom is contained the race of man or the elect of God, and on the other the family (be it the so-called extended family, or the tribe, or in Israel, the twelve tribes as One). Any member of these unities is an individual member or person but not an individual as such.
In the Church a person is baptized not only into union with Christ himself but also simultaneously into his Body, and thus each baptized believer is one member united to many members. And each member is an individual person, an individual Christian, not an individual in isolation! By Christian nurture and education, the Church seeks to make each of us aware that while we are individual persons with individual responsibility we are nevertheless not isolated units for we are inter-related. Rather, we are related units and we find our fulfillment and vocation in rightful unions and associations and vocations with others! Our individual talents are by the grace of God used for the common good and to fulfill duties to family, community, nation and local church.
Jesus was not an individual in his earthly ministry and in heaven now as our King, Priest and Prophet, he is not an individual, even though he possesses human nature perfected and glorified. He is a Person, an unique Person but a Person, eternally related to the Father and the Holy Ghost in Love in the Holy Trinity. We who are his brethren, because adopted by his Father as his children, are likewise not individuals but persons, each of us (by grace alone) having a personal relation with the Father, through and in Jesus. Thus we avoid and reject modern individualism for we belong to the fellowship and communion of the saints in glory.
June 14, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
A friend responds –
Briefly, the distinction between "individual" and "person" is as follows:
The INDIVIDUAL is characterized and defined/ defines himself in terms of his differences from other individuals. Individualism is inherently and inevitably atomistic (hence profoundly contrary to human nature -- see below). Where it is the dominant functional philosophy, society is always in flux between the extremes of anarchy and collectivism (which is the revenge human nature takes on radical individualism), leaving man with a choice between the life of the solitary wasp or that of the hive.
The human PERSON, though unique, is defined in terms of his relation to other human persons. We come to know ourselves and to be ourselves in relation to others. Which is another way of saying that man is an inherently social being. Apart from a society, he is something less than human.
This inherent social nature is perhaps the most important aspect of the
image of the Triune God in man. One consequence of this is that man can only find personal fulfillment in communion with God. This fulfillment takes place -- and can only take place -- in the society of the Church "which is the blessed company of all faithful people," which is why the Church is in principle prior to any person's relationship with God. Thus the church is not a voluntary society constructed of individual believers, but an organic reality into which we are called by God and in which he brings us to faith.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)