Fasting --- is it relevant and necessary in Lent in the 21st Century?
The answer is YES and here is why!
First a word of explanation.
The long-standing tradition in all the jurisdictions and branches of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is that (a) Ash Wednesday, the first day of the 40 days of preparation for Easter, is a day of complete FASTING, as also is Good Friday, and, (b) that each of the following 39 days [which do not include Sundays] is also a day of abstinence, in the sense of not consuming meat and dairy products and of eating moderately such food as vegetables, grain, nuts and fruit.
Thus it is not surprising that the Collect for the First Sunday in Lent in The Book of Common Prayer (1662, 1928) in referring to the 40 day fast of the Lord Jesus prays: "Give us grace to use such abstinence, that our flesh being subdued to the Spirit, we may ever obey thy godly motions in righteousness and true holiness."
The purpose of the fasting can be expressed simply in terms of (a) consciously uniting ourselves with the Lord Jesus who himself fasted for forty days; (b) humbling ourselves before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father to repent of sins and seek his blessing; (c) clearing our minds and focusing our bodies for self-examination, prayer and communion with God; (d) uniting with other believers in the one Body of Christ and household of God through space and time in this act of devotion to our Lord, and (e) preparing ourselves before God rightly and devoutly to celebrate the Atoning Death and Glorious Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fasting is not done to earn our salvation before God or to show God what depths of self-discipline we are capable of. Our Lord met such errors in the Pharisees and responded with teaching on Fasting in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6). Fasting is done as is praying, meditating, contemplating, reading and singing as a spiritual discipline and as a means of grace for those who are members of the new covenant of grace. It is a way of making space in our souls for the operation of the Spirit of God to do his work of sanctification.
The apostles fasted and prayed (see e.g., Acts 13:3; 14:23 & cf. 2 Corinthians 6:5 & 11:27) and so did the leaders and members of the Early Church (see e.g., The Didache). Converts to Christ and Christianity were required to engage in fasting before they were baptized on Easter Eve and thus the tradition of fasting was part of the Christian life even before church membership was fully granted.
Along with the discipline of fasting and thus not eating, there is also the ancient Lenten discipline of almsgiving. That is we give the value of the meat and dairy products not eaten to needy persons inside and outside the membership of the Church of God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon, Vice President and Emissary at Large of the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A.
February 2002
Saturday, February 09, 2002
Friday, February 08, 2002
"Mere Christianity" and full Christian commitment [e.g., during Lent].
[I offer this meditation before the beginning of Lent in order to show why for some the godly discipline of the Church Year (which includes the keeping of Lent) has great importance.]
Each and every regenerated and believing Christian, whatever jurisdiction of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church or denominational group to which he belongs, confesses Christ Jesus as Lord and prays "Our Father" to the Father of the same Lord Jesus Christ. Further, he accepts and submits to the sacred Scriptures as the Word of God written and accepts it as the authoritative basis in the Church for Faith and Morality.
The central or essential Christian confession and commitment - it if can be extracted from the whole Christian vocation and consecration - may be called with C.S.Lewis "Mere Christianity" and or with others "Basic Christianity." This core or common denominator can be expressed in terms of believing and trusting God in terms of the doctrines of the Apostles' Creed, praying to God in the way taught by the Lord's Prayer, and obeying God as given in the Ten Commandments (and their fulfillment by the Lord Jesus).
The popular "Alpha" course is intended to teach "Mere Christianity" and so are other similar things.
Obviously this core commitment and consecration of Basic Christianity has to exist in a real context of church membership, church worship, church doctrine, church discipline and church style/churchmanship. Thus there is an Orthodox Way, a Roman Catholic Way, an Anglican Way, a Lutheran Way, a Methodist Way and so on. And then within these large categories there are subdivisions or differing emphases and styles.
Within a large world of many cultures and languages; within a Church that experienced in the middle Ages the great division of East and West; then within the West the divisions of the sixteenth century caused by the Protestant Reformation; and then again within the West in the nineteenth century and since the proliferation of denominations that now cover the world, we should expect to see a variety of styles and ways of being Christian. Likewise we should expect to see a vast array of opinions! And we do, and it is confusing even to those of us who have studied Church history in depth and detail!
The most obvious place to see this vast ocean of opinions is in what I have dubbed the American supermarket of religions - see the Yellow Pages of the Phone Directory of any large city under "religions" and "churches" as a starter!
In this context, be it in the USA or in South Africa or the Punjab each of us has to find a home in God's household within one of these jurisdictions or churches or denominations and then allow "Mere Christianity" to reach a fuller expression in a discipline of worship, doctrine, devotion and lifestyle. In some place in the world our choice of "church home" is overwhelming while in others it is down to one or two choices!
For me, such a home would need to be one where (a) there was a deep sense of belonging in a tangible way to God's Church which has existed through space and time as a divine society in history since the apostolic age, and one which (b) accepted not merely the authority of the Scriptures, which is foundational, but also the godly example and teaching of the Church (i.e., the church of the Fathers, the patristic church of the first four or five
centuries) which actually collected the Scriptures and accepted them as Canon (rule). This of course limits me to a small group of the long-standing Churches of the world; and since, by the providence of God, I was born in England and not in Germany I see no absolute reason not to find that home in the ancient church of England, now the Church of England, but for many centuries known as the Ecclesia Anglicana.
From this home I can and should cooperate with fellow Christian believers in the other churches and groups, I can and should attempt to feel with Christ the pain of the existence of much of these divisions and schisms, and I can wait in hope for the end of the age and the fullness of redemption when by grace alone we shall all be one in Christ.
Meanwhile, my vocation as an Anglican (be it as a clergyman or a layman) has to be a filling out of, or a development of, the "Basic Christianity" that I share by the grace of God with others.
So I have to shed some/most of my opinions (remembering that the Greek word for opinion is the word meaning heresy!) and submit to an authentic expression of the "Anglican Way" and style of worship, doctrine, discipline, and order. Others who are Lutherans or Methodists have a similar but different duty which may be described as complementary in the greater view of things.
The traditional and authentic style for Anglicans is the living within the discipline of The Book of Common Prayer. Herein are services to cover the whole of my life from the cradle to the grave; herein is a daily service for mornings and evenings that I can/should use; herein is a Daily lectionary of readings from the Bible to follow; herein are Bible readings for each Sunday and holy day; herein is the Church Year wherein I walk with Christ as a child, to the Jordan river, into the wilderness, around Galilee and Judea, to Jerusalem, to Calvary and to the heights of heaven; herein are the traditional periods of fasting (e.g. Lent) of Ember days (special prayers) of festivals and so on. With my Bible and my Prayer Book I am set to live within the discipline of the Anglican Way. All other Christian books, be they commentaries on the Bible or aids to devotion and piety, are there to enrich my living within the discipline of The Book of Common Prayer. I am a person under authority and my opinions are restricted and my options are few! And such is good for godly habits are part of the foundation of sanctification.
Thus the devout Anglican keeps Lent not to earn God's salvation but as a member of the household of God, in union with saints (from many centuries and places of yesterday and today) and in union with the Lord, in order to worship and love the Lord or God and to prepare the better to celebrate the Atonement and the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. An Anglican fasts in union with Jesus and at his command and seeks to give what he saves on food as alms.
===================
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon Rector of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
Diocese of Lichfield & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large of the Prayer Book Society of the USA.
[I offer this meditation before the beginning of Lent in order to show why for some the godly discipline of the Church Year (which includes the keeping of Lent) has great importance.]
Each and every regenerated and believing Christian, whatever jurisdiction of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church or denominational group to which he belongs, confesses Christ Jesus as Lord and prays "Our Father" to the Father of the same Lord Jesus Christ. Further, he accepts and submits to the sacred Scriptures as the Word of God written and accepts it as the authoritative basis in the Church for Faith and Morality.
The central or essential Christian confession and commitment - it if can be extracted from the whole Christian vocation and consecration - may be called with C.S.Lewis "Mere Christianity" and or with others "Basic Christianity." This core or common denominator can be expressed in terms of believing and trusting God in terms of the doctrines of the Apostles' Creed, praying to God in the way taught by the Lord's Prayer, and obeying God as given in the Ten Commandments (and their fulfillment by the Lord Jesus).
The popular "Alpha" course is intended to teach "Mere Christianity" and so are other similar things.
Obviously this core commitment and consecration of Basic Christianity has to exist in a real context of church membership, church worship, church doctrine, church discipline and church style/churchmanship. Thus there is an Orthodox Way, a Roman Catholic Way, an Anglican Way, a Lutheran Way, a Methodist Way and so on. And then within these large categories there are subdivisions or differing emphases and styles.
Within a large world of many cultures and languages; within a Church that experienced in the middle Ages the great division of East and West; then within the West the divisions of the sixteenth century caused by the Protestant Reformation; and then again within the West in the nineteenth century and since the proliferation of denominations that now cover the world, we should expect to see a variety of styles and ways of being Christian. Likewise we should expect to see a vast array of opinions! And we do, and it is confusing even to those of us who have studied Church history in depth and detail!
The most obvious place to see this vast ocean of opinions is in what I have dubbed the American supermarket of religions - see the Yellow Pages of the Phone Directory of any large city under "religions" and "churches" as a starter!
In this context, be it in the USA or in South Africa or the Punjab each of us has to find a home in God's household within one of these jurisdictions or churches or denominations and then allow "Mere Christianity" to reach a fuller expression in a discipline of worship, doctrine, devotion and lifestyle. In some place in the world our choice of "church home" is overwhelming while in others it is down to one or two choices!
For me, such a home would need to be one where (a) there was a deep sense of belonging in a tangible way to God's Church which has existed through space and time as a divine society in history since the apostolic age, and one which (b) accepted not merely the authority of the Scriptures, which is foundational, but also the godly example and teaching of the Church (i.e., the church of the Fathers, the patristic church of the first four or five
centuries) which actually collected the Scriptures and accepted them as Canon (rule). This of course limits me to a small group of the long-standing Churches of the world; and since, by the providence of God, I was born in England and not in Germany I see no absolute reason not to find that home in the ancient church of England, now the Church of England, but for many centuries known as the Ecclesia Anglicana.
From this home I can and should cooperate with fellow Christian believers in the other churches and groups, I can and should attempt to feel with Christ the pain of the existence of much of these divisions and schisms, and I can wait in hope for the end of the age and the fullness of redemption when by grace alone we shall all be one in Christ.
Meanwhile, my vocation as an Anglican (be it as a clergyman or a layman) has to be a filling out of, or a development of, the "Basic Christianity" that I share by the grace of God with others.
So I have to shed some/most of my opinions (remembering that the Greek word for opinion is the word meaning heresy!) and submit to an authentic expression of the "Anglican Way" and style of worship, doctrine, discipline, and order. Others who are Lutherans or Methodists have a similar but different duty which may be described as complementary in the greater view of things.
The traditional and authentic style for Anglicans is the living within the discipline of The Book of Common Prayer. Herein are services to cover the whole of my life from the cradle to the grave; herein is a daily service for mornings and evenings that I can/should use; herein is a Daily lectionary of readings from the Bible to follow; herein are Bible readings for each Sunday and holy day; herein is the Church Year wherein I walk with Christ as a child, to the Jordan river, into the wilderness, around Galilee and Judea, to Jerusalem, to Calvary and to the heights of heaven; herein are the traditional periods of fasting (e.g. Lent) of Ember days (special prayers) of festivals and so on. With my Bible and my Prayer Book I am set to live within the discipline of the Anglican Way. All other Christian books, be they commentaries on the Bible or aids to devotion and piety, are there to enrich my living within the discipline of The Book of Common Prayer. I am a person under authority and my opinions are restricted and my options are few! And such is good for godly habits are part of the foundation of sanctification.
Thus the devout Anglican keeps Lent not to earn God's salvation but as a member of the household of God, in union with saints (from many centuries and places of yesterday and today) and in union with the Lord, in order to worship and love the Lord or God and to prepare the better to celebrate the Atonement and the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. An Anglican fasts in union with Jesus and at his command and seeks to give what he saves on food as alms.
===================
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon Rector of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
Diocese of Lichfield & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large of the Prayer Book Society of the USA.
Wednesday, February 06, 2002
THE SUNDAY NEXT BEFORE LENT
(SHROVE SUNDAY or QUINQUAGESIMA)
The focal point and center of the Church Year is the period from Good Friday to Easter Sunday - the PASCH, Easter. On Quinquagesima we are fifty days from it, and we are three days before the beginning of the 40 days that in English we call LENT.
In the classic prayer book of the Anglican Communion, THE BOOK OFCOMMON PRAYER, the Eucharistic Lectionary for this day follows the ancient Latin tradition of having as the Epistle, Paul' great "Psalm in praise of Love" [1 Cor.13] on the central virtue of LOVE, charity (Caritas, Agape), and for the Gospel, Luke 18:31ff., which presents Jesus going ahead towards His Cross.
However, the English Reformers in 1549 chose not to use the ancient Latin Collect but to create a new one based upon the content of the Epistle. They would have rendered the ancient one something like this: "We beseech thee, O Lord, mercifully to hear our prayers; that we, being absolved from the chain of our sins, may be defended from all adversity.." The theme here fits in of course with the old English name for this Sunday - Shrove Sunday - which points to the confession and absolution of sin (see "to shrive" in a good Dictionary) as the right attitude and activity for the beginning of the Lent Fast, as we join with our Lord in his forty days of fasting and prayer.
Archbishop Cranmer wrote the new Collect for a good purpose --- in order to put a positive emphasis into the preparation for the beginning of Lent. Not that the English Reformers wanted to take away the emphasis upon self-examination, confession of sins and absolution (see the Service of Commination for Ash Wednesday for proof of this) but that they wanted to make it clear, as does the Epistle from 1 Corinthians 13, that all activities [Lenten discipline, all fastings, all mortifications, all self-denials, all piety and devotion] WITHOUT love do not truly please God or sanctify the soul. That is, all good works and self-discipline that are not in their innermost center guided by charity (agape, caritas)] are worth nothing before the brilliant and pure holiness of the righteous God and also do nothing for the salvation and sanctification of the person doing them.
It has always been assumed from the 16th century in the Reformed Catholicism that is the Anglican Way that the essentials of Lent, whose origin reaches back into the fasting of the Catechumens before Easter in the ancient Church, would be kept by English Christians (now Anglicans worldwide). For example, that Ash Wednesday is a day of abstinence and of special self-examination and prayer, and likewise is Good Friday. Unless one is sick or with child or feeding a child, abstinence means no food, but can mean drinking fluids, according to need.
On the other 38 days of Lent fasting means eating less and especially abstaining from meats and animal products so as to make space and time for more devotion and almsgiving, in union with our Lord in his 40 days. Sundays, being the Lord's Day and festivals of the Resurrection are not part of Lent and the discipline of the 40 days is relaxed on them, especially on the mid-Sunday in Lent, known by various names - e.g., Mothering Sunday or Laetare Sunday.
The old custom of the minor feast on Shrove Tuesday in northern Europe was to use up from the larder the eggs and oil (thus pancakes or donuts) because in Lent only vegetables, fruit and non-dairy food would be used. No one ever went out to buy special food for Shrove Tuesday, rather they used up what was there (having no freezers to put it in for use after Easter!). Regrettably, in the secularization of Christianity and of the Church, the minor feasting has become for some a big meal with entertainment - as the carnival scenes in Rio de Janeiro and in New Orleans and as the Shrove Tuesday feasts of Protestants illustrate.
In union with our Lord, and in preparation for the true celebration of EASTER, let us keep a holy Lent seeking to please God and to sanctify our hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God.
=====================================================================
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon, February 6, 2002 Vice President of the American Prayer Book Society
(SHROVE SUNDAY or QUINQUAGESIMA)
The focal point and center of the Church Year is the period from Good Friday to Easter Sunday - the PASCH, Easter. On Quinquagesima we are fifty days from it, and we are three days before the beginning of the 40 days that in English we call LENT.
In the classic prayer book of the Anglican Communion, THE BOOK OFCOMMON PRAYER, the Eucharistic Lectionary for this day follows the ancient Latin tradition of having as the Epistle, Paul' great "Psalm in praise of Love" [1 Cor.13] on the central virtue of LOVE, charity (Caritas, Agape), and for the Gospel, Luke 18:31ff., which presents Jesus going ahead towards His Cross.
However, the English Reformers in 1549 chose not to use the ancient Latin Collect but to create a new one based upon the content of the Epistle. They would have rendered the ancient one something like this: "We beseech thee, O Lord, mercifully to hear our prayers; that we, being absolved from the chain of our sins, may be defended from all adversity.." The theme here fits in of course with the old English name for this Sunday - Shrove Sunday - which points to the confession and absolution of sin (see "to shrive" in a good Dictionary) as the right attitude and activity for the beginning of the Lent Fast, as we join with our Lord in his forty days of fasting and prayer.
Archbishop Cranmer wrote the new Collect for a good purpose --- in order to put a positive emphasis into the preparation for the beginning of Lent. Not that the English Reformers wanted to take away the emphasis upon self-examination, confession of sins and absolution (see the Service of Commination for Ash Wednesday for proof of this) but that they wanted to make it clear, as does the Epistle from 1 Corinthians 13, that all activities [Lenten discipline, all fastings, all mortifications, all self-denials, all piety and devotion] WITHOUT love do not truly please God or sanctify the soul. That is, all good works and self-discipline that are not in their innermost center guided by charity (agape, caritas)] are worth nothing before the brilliant and pure holiness of the righteous God and also do nothing for the salvation and sanctification of the person doing them.
O LORD, WHO HAS TAUGHT US THAT ALL OUR DOINGS WITHOUT CHARITY ARE NOTHING WORTH; SEND THY HOLY GHOST, AND POUR INTO OUR HEARTS THAT MOST EXCELLENT GIFT OF CHARITY, THE VERY BOND OF PEACE AND ALL VIRTUES, WITHOUT WHICH WHOSOEVER LIVETH IS COUNTED DEAD BEFORE THEE. GRANT THIS FOR THINE ONLY SON, JESUS CHRIST'S SAKE. AMEN.
It has always been assumed from the 16th century in the Reformed Catholicism that is the Anglican Way that the essentials of Lent, whose origin reaches back into the fasting of the Catechumens before Easter in the ancient Church, would be kept by English Christians (now Anglicans worldwide). For example, that Ash Wednesday is a day of abstinence and of special self-examination and prayer, and likewise is Good Friday. Unless one is sick or with child or feeding a child, abstinence means no food, but can mean drinking fluids, according to need.
On the other 38 days of Lent fasting means eating less and especially abstaining from meats and animal products so as to make space and time for more devotion and almsgiving, in union with our Lord in his 40 days. Sundays, being the Lord's Day and festivals of the Resurrection are not part of Lent and the discipline of the 40 days is relaxed on them, especially on the mid-Sunday in Lent, known by various names - e.g., Mothering Sunday or Laetare Sunday.
The old custom of the minor feast on Shrove Tuesday in northern Europe was to use up from the larder the eggs and oil (thus pancakes or donuts) because in Lent only vegetables, fruit and non-dairy food would be used. No one ever went out to buy special food for Shrove Tuesday, rather they used up what was there (having no freezers to put it in for use after Easter!). Regrettably, in the secularization of Christianity and of the Church, the minor feasting has become for some a big meal with entertainment - as the carnival scenes in Rio de Janeiro and in New Orleans and as the Shrove Tuesday feasts of Protestants illustrate.
In union with our Lord, and in preparation for the true celebration of EASTER, let us keep a holy Lent seeking to please God and to sanctify our hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God.
=====================================================================
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon, February 6, 2002 Vice President of the American Prayer Book Society
Monday, February 04, 2002
Shrove Sunday = Quinquagesima
On the Lord's Day, Sunday February 10th, it will be only three days to the beginning of Lent and 50 days [thus Quinquagesima, 50th] to the end of Lent. The countdown to the start of the season of fasting and almsgiving, which began on Septuagesima, will be nearly over.
Lent, the praising of God through the confession of our sins in preparation for a godly celebration of the Atonement and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, is thus soon to begin.
If we find the long Latin name for the Sunday next before Lent somewhat hard to pronounce or to remember, we can revert to the old English name for this day, Shrove Sunday. Then we can also speak of Shrove Monday and Shrove Tuesday.
And if we use the word "Shrove" then we can be reminded of the appropriate preparation for Lent as well as of a major theme of Lent. "Shrove" is from "Shrive" and this verb was used in late medieval times of the confessing of sins and the receiving of absolution in the days immediately before Ash Wednesday. [for use note this example: "Give me leave to shrive her, lest she should die without absolution" - 1633] Then of course on Ash Wednesday it was the medieval custom to place ashes upon penitent believers and remind them that "from dust thou art and to dust thou shall return" so that they would take seriously the need to receive the grace of God for the redemption of their souls and bodies. If we have heard the Gospel, we all know that only those who are penitent of heart are in the position to receive the grace of the Lord Jesus from God the Father Almighty.
For those who wisely still use "The Book of Common Prayer" in one of its classic editions (e.g., England 1662, USA 1928) the services prescribed for use on Ash Wednesday are a Commination Service (or Pentitential Office) together with the Order for Holy Communion. To these may be added according to local custom and the Bishop's permission, the imposition of ashes. (This latter cermony was discarded at the Reformation because it was judged in its received medieval form not to be sufficiently declarative of the grace of
God.)
One of the real problems of some of the post-1960s new prayer books of the Anglican Communion, and indeed of some modern translations of the Bible, is that they have endeavoured to remove a major aspect of sin from Christian doctrine and thus they have removed something to be recognized and confessed by the humble heart. So they have reduced the meaning of Lent and the general confession of sins in divine worship.
Let us note Psalm 51 in the Psalter in 1979 USA prayer book. (I leave my friends in other places than the USA to check their own local prayer books.)
Note first the RSV. Psalm 51:6 "Indeed I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." (see also the NRSV, REB,NAB and NJB for similar translations, and cf. Gen 8:21; I Kgs 8:46; Job 4:17; 14:4; 15:14; 25:4 & Prov. 20:9)
In contrast, Psalm 51:6 in the 1979 Psalter is deliberately translated so as to avoid what the Church has called for centuries, original sin. "Indeed, I have been wicked from my birth, a sinner from my mother's womb." This supposes that I do not inherit the principle of sin as a human being but that sin only occurs when I am alive outside the womb.
The avoidance of original sin ("the bondage of the will" according to
Luther) is also in the "Outline of the Faith" on pp.845ff. of the USA prayer book and is presupposed right through the Rite II material of the 1979 prayer book.
We may comment that if there is no original sin then the salvation offered in the new episcopal religion is less than that offered to the psalmist, King David, to Israel and to all who hear the Gospel of the New Covenant. For it is a salvation from only a part of the reality of sin. There remains in us the bondage of the will to the principle of sin when the new Episcopal religion has saved us!
Let our sin to be confessed in Lent follow the historic teaching of the Anglican Way, the best of the old USA episcopal religion - see the Psalter (Ps 51) in the BCP 1662/1928 and note the confession of sins in the Daily Office of this authentic Prayer Book. Let it be the confession of the totality of our sin and thus let it be the praise of the God who delivers us from all our sin through Jesus Christ.
The confession of our sins is not something to get over quickly so that we can move on (in modern mood) to "celebration". Rather the genuine confession of sins in reverence and awe is an act of praise to Almighty God, the Judge and the Redeemer. For the true confession of sins is the praise of His justice and righteousness and also the magnifying of his sovereign grace and mercy which blots out all our sins.
Appendix:
Shrove Tuesday
There has developed over the centuries the custom of having a feast on Shrove Tuesday and thus getting one's belly full before the strict Fast of Ash Wednesday begins. This custom needs to be seen as a concession to human weakness adopted in the period of Christian civilization or Christendom when there were many nominal Christians in the Church. To have a feast on the day before a major day of penitence and fasting is not what the Early Church taught and not what faithful believers today ought to engage in!
==================
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Vice President of the Prayer Book Society of the USA.
Feb 4 2002.
On the Lord's Day, Sunday February 10th, it will be only three days to the beginning of Lent and 50 days [thus Quinquagesima, 50th] to the end of Lent. The countdown to the start of the season of fasting and almsgiving, which began on Septuagesima, will be nearly over.
Lent, the praising of God through the confession of our sins in preparation for a godly celebration of the Atonement and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, is thus soon to begin.
If we find the long Latin name for the Sunday next before Lent somewhat hard to pronounce or to remember, we can revert to the old English name for this day, Shrove Sunday. Then we can also speak of Shrove Monday and Shrove Tuesday.
And if we use the word "Shrove" then we can be reminded of the appropriate preparation for Lent as well as of a major theme of Lent. "Shrove" is from "Shrive" and this verb was used in late medieval times of the confessing of sins and the receiving of absolution in the days immediately before Ash Wednesday. [for use note this example: "Give me leave to shrive her, lest she should die without absolution" - 1633] Then of course on Ash Wednesday it was the medieval custom to place ashes upon penitent believers and remind them that "from dust thou art and to dust thou shall return" so that they would take seriously the need to receive the grace of God for the redemption of their souls and bodies. If we have heard the Gospel, we all know that only those who are penitent of heart are in the position to receive the grace of the Lord Jesus from God the Father Almighty.
For those who wisely still use "The Book of Common Prayer" in one of its classic editions (e.g., England 1662, USA 1928) the services prescribed for use on Ash Wednesday are a Commination Service (or Pentitential Office) together with the Order for Holy Communion. To these may be added according to local custom and the Bishop's permission, the imposition of ashes. (This latter cermony was discarded at the Reformation because it was judged in its received medieval form not to be sufficiently declarative of the grace of
God.)
One of the real problems of some of the post-1960s new prayer books of the Anglican Communion, and indeed of some modern translations of the Bible, is that they have endeavoured to remove a major aspect of sin from Christian doctrine and thus they have removed something to be recognized and confessed by the humble heart. So they have reduced the meaning of Lent and the general confession of sins in divine worship.
Let us note Psalm 51 in the Psalter in 1979 USA prayer book. (I leave my friends in other places than the USA to check their own local prayer books.)
Note first the RSV. Psalm 51:6 "Indeed I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." (see also the NRSV, REB,NAB and NJB for similar translations, and cf. Gen 8:21; I Kgs 8:46; Job 4:17; 14:4; 15:14; 25:4 & Prov. 20:9)
In contrast, Psalm 51:6 in the 1979 Psalter is deliberately translated so as to avoid what the Church has called for centuries, original sin. "Indeed, I have been wicked from my birth, a sinner from my mother's womb." This supposes that I do not inherit the principle of sin as a human being but that sin only occurs when I am alive outside the womb.
The avoidance of original sin ("the bondage of the will" according to
Luther) is also in the "Outline of the Faith" on pp.845ff. of the USA prayer book and is presupposed right through the Rite II material of the 1979 prayer book.
We may comment that if there is no original sin then the salvation offered in the new episcopal religion is less than that offered to the psalmist, King David, to Israel and to all who hear the Gospel of the New Covenant. For it is a salvation from only a part of the reality of sin. There remains in us the bondage of the will to the principle of sin when the new Episcopal religion has saved us!
Let our sin to be confessed in Lent follow the historic teaching of the Anglican Way, the best of the old USA episcopal religion - see the Psalter (Ps 51) in the BCP 1662/1928 and note the confession of sins in the Daily Office of this authentic Prayer Book. Let it be the confession of the totality of our sin and thus let it be the praise of the God who delivers us from all our sin through Jesus Christ.
The confession of our sins is not something to get over quickly so that we can move on (in modern mood) to "celebration". Rather the genuine confession of sins in reverence and awe is an act of praise to Almighty God, the Judge and the Redeemer. For the true confession of sins is the praise of His justice and righteousness and also the magnifying of his sovereign grace and mercy which blots out all our sins.
Appendix:
Shrove Tuesday
There has developed over the centuries the custom of having a feast on Shrove Tuesday and thus getting one's belly full before the strict Fast of Ash Wednesday begins. This custom needs to be seen as a concession to human weakness adopted in the period of Christian civilization or Christendom when there were many nominal Christians in the Church. To have a feast on the day before a major day of penitence and fasting is not what the Early Church taught and not what faithful believers today ought to engage in!
==================
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Vice President of the Prayer Book Society of the USA.
Feb 4 2002.
Thursday, January 31, 2002
SEXAGESIMA (OR THE SECOND SUNDAY BEFORE LENT)
The count down to the beginning of Lent continues.
We got off to a solid start last week, Septuagesima. In the Epistle we were taught that "it is never too late to be damned" even if one is an apostle (1 Cor.9:24ff); and in the Gospel we learned that that "it is never too late to be saved" by the mercy of the heavenly Father (the vineyard owner of the parable in Matthew 20:1ff).
Thus there is need for constant vigilance in the management of one's whole life before God, as well as for constant trust in the grace of the merciful Father, through Jesus Christ the Lord.
This week from the Epistle we learn more of the total consecration of the apostle Paul to his Lord and to his vocation and how much he suffered in body and soul for this commitment (2 Corinthians 9:19ff.). Thus we are provided with an example of what serving the Lord wholeheartedly could entail. In the count down to Lent and in Lent itself, through self-examination, we are to ascertain where we have failed in our consecration and to look for ways to intensify and enlarge our commitment to the Lord and his cause.
The Gospel (Luke 8:4-15) is the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. This provides a strong word of both warning and grace to us. God's Word is propagated and he desires that it be heard, received and obeyed. Yet only a few of us will actually prove to be persons in whom the Gospel truly bears fruit. Most of us will receive the Gospel but only partially or only alongside some other commitment. That is most of us will provide examples of how the power of the devil, temptation, the pressures of the secular world and our own innate sins push out the claims of the Gospel. This is why the churches are so morally and spiritually weak and why, where they seem to prosper, they are so worldly and conformed to secular value systems.
In the count down to Lent and in Lent there is time to repent and to become, by grace alone, those who hear the Word, engage in self-examination and go on to bear fruit for the Word.
The Collect is the prayer of those who have been led by their own fragile state and moral weakness to cast themselves wholly upon God's mercy.
"O Lord God, who seest that we put not our trust in anything that we do; Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended [by the protection of the Doctor of the Gentiles] against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
(the words in square brackets were in the original Latin but omitted by Archbishop Cranmer in 1549)
See further the Eucharistic Lectionary contained in the editions of the classic Book of Common Prayer
The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon, Vice President of the American Prayer Book Society, January 31, 2002
The count down to the beginning of Lent continues.
We got off to a solid start last week, Septuagesima. In the Epistle we were taught that "it is never too late to be damned" even if one is an apostle (1 Cor.9:24ff); and in the Gospel we learned that that "it is never too late to be saved" by the mercy of the heavenly Father (the vineyard owner of the parable in Matthew 20:1ff).
Thus there is need for constant vigilance in the management of one's whole life before God, as well as for constant trust in the grace of the merciful Father, through Jesus Christ the Lord.
This week from the Epistle we learn more of the total consecration of the apostle Paul to his Lord and to his vocation and how much he suffered in body and soul for this commitment (2 Corinthians 9:19ff.). Thus we are provided with an example of what serving the Lord wholeheartedly could entail. In the count down to Lent and in Lent itself, through self-examination, we are to ascertain where we have failed in our consecration and to look for ways to intensify and enlarge our commitment to the Lord and his cause.
The Gospel (Luke 8:4-15) is the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. This provides a strong word of both warning and grace to us. God's Word is propagated and he desires that it be heard, received and obeyed. Yet only a few of us will actually prove to be persons in whom the Gospel truly bears fruit. Most of us will receive the Gospel but only partially or only alongside some other commitment. That is most of us will provide examples of how the power of the devil, temptation, the pressures of the secular world and our own innate sins push out the claims of the Gospel. This is why the churches are so morally and spiritually weak and why, where they seem to prosper, they are so worldly and conformed to secular value systems.
In the count down to Lent and in Lent there is time to repent and to become, by grace alone, those who hear the Word, engage in self-examination and go on to bear fruit for the Word.
The Collect is the prayer of those who have been led by their own fragile state and moral weakness to cast themselves wholly upon God's mercy.
"O Lord God, who seest that we put not our trust in anything that we do; Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended [by the protection of the Doctor of the Gentiles] against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
(the words in square brackets were in the original Latin but omitted by Archbishop Cranmer in 1549)
See further the Eucharistic Lectionary contained in the editions of the classic Book of Common Prayer
The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon, Vice President of the American Prayer Book Society, January 31, 2002
Tuesday, January 22, 2002
Septuagesima is here again! Wonderful!
============================
For those who follow the ancient Eucharistic Lectionary which is in the classic BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (1549, 1662, 1928 -USA) the Sunday that falls three Sundays before the first Sunday in Lent is called SEPTUAGESIMA (Latin = 70th). It is followed by Sexagesima (60th) Quinquagesima (50th) and finally Quadragesima (40th). Ash Wednesday comes between Quinqagesima and Quadragesima.
It seems that in the Latin-speaking Church in the late sixth century the faithful were not content with the forty days of Lent (beginning on what we now call the First Sunday in Lent or what used to be called, Quadragesima) as a time of preparation for the right celebration of the Pasch [Easter]. It was not long enough! So they added as a preparation for Lent a period of three weeks and called the Sundays of these weeks (by analogy with Quadragesima), Quinquagesima, Sexagesima & Septuagesima because they were round numbers. Of course, only Quinquagesima is strictly accurate in mathematical terms for there is 50 days from the Sunday before Ash Wednesday to the end of Lent.
And then to make the number of days of Lent to be exactly 40 and not to include the Sundays in Lent (because they are celebrations of the
Resurrection) the beginning of Lent was fixed for what we now call Ash Wednesday. And because this period heralded the approach of Spring, the word Lent (meaning Spring) was used in northern Europe.
The Epistle [1 Cor 9:24ff.] and Gospel [Matt. 20:lff.] for Septuagesima have been used in the West since the sixth century. The late Monsignor Ronald Knox perceptively remarked that: "Septuagesima has an Epistle which warns us that it is never too late to be damned and a Gospel which tells us that it is never too late to be saved." (The Epistles & Gospels, p. 96). How right he was!
Let us look briefly at the Epistle and the Gospel.
1. In 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 the apostle Paul makes use of illustrations from the athletic contest (Isthmian Games) and from boxing to make important points about the "running & disciplining of the Christian life." As the athlete must exercise self-discipline and be rightly focused in order to run for the prize, so also the authentic and committed Christian must exercise moral discipline and look constantly to the goal of his journey, the prize of being with the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, as the boxer is not to indulge in shadow-boxing or to throw punches aimlessly, but to make all punches count, so the Christian is to punch successfully, in this case not another but himself by constant moral and spiritual disciplinary blows.
In verse 27 he makes a very personal and profoundly challenging statement: "I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself
should be disqualified." So Knox wrote of an Epistle that warns us it is
never too late to be damned.
2. In Matthew 20:1-16 we read the Parable of the Vineyard and the Labourers and, though it presents a familiar picture of Jewish life, it is nevertheless full of surprises. The purpose of the parable is to teach how God receives people graciously into his kingdom.
The first surprise is that the employer himself (not a servant of his) goes down to the market square to recruit workers for his vineyard. And he does so not once but several times, hiring men at different times of the day.
The second surprise is that at the end of the day when the workers are paid the employer pays those whom he hired last a full day's pay. He is a generous employer.
And the third surprise is that we are told about the reaction of those who had worked all day and were paid the same as those who worked only part of the day. The answer to their complaint is that they were paid what they were promised and that this amount was good pay for a day's work.
This Parable is all about the grace of God who welcomes into his kingdom, under conditions which he alone sets, people of different kinds and achievements. To stand in the kingdom of God does not depend in any way at all on human merit but upon God's call and mercy, generosity and justice. God welcomes "late comers" as well as "early comers" into his kingdom. In the words of Knox, "it is never too late to be saved."
3. Conclusion. In terms of preparation for Lent, these two Bible readings proclaim to us two sides of the one divine coin of truth. On the one hand we cannot earn our way into God's kingdom for it is wholly and totally by grace and mercy. On the other hand, in the kingdom we are to live as befits servants of the King, that is disciplined, obedient, holy and righteous lives.
"I would not work my soul to save for that my Lord has done, but I would work like any slave for love of God's dear Son."
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon January 22nd 2002
============================
For those who follow the ancient Eucharistic Lectionary which is in the classic BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (1549, 1662, 1928 -USA) the Sunday that falls three Sundays before the first Sunday in Lent is called SEPTUAGESIMA (Latin = 70th). It is followed by Sexagesima (60th) Quinquagesima (50th) and finally Quadragesima (40th). Ash Wednesday comes between Quinqagesima and Quadragesima.
It seems that in the Latin-speaking Church in the late sixth century the faithful were not content with the forty days of Lent (beginning on what we now call the First Sunday in Lent or what used to be called, Quadragesima) as a time of preparation for the right celebration of the Pasch [Easter]. It was not long enough! So they added as a preparation for Lent a period of three weeks and called the Sundays of these weeks (by analogy with Quadragesima), Quinquagesima, Sexagesima & Septuagesima because they were round numbers. Of course, only Quinquagesima is strictly accurate in mathematical terms for there is 50 days from the Sunday before Ash Wednesday to the end of Lent.
And then to make the number of days of Lent to be exactly 40 and not to include the Sundays in Lent (because they are celebrations of the
Resurrection) the beginning of Lent was fixed for what we now call Ash Wednesday. And because this period heralded the approach of Spring, the word Lent (meaning Spring) was used in northern Europe.
The Epistle [1 Cor 9:24ff.] and Gospel [Matt. 20:lff.] for Septuagesima have been used in the West since the sixth century. The late Monsignor Ronald Knox perceptively remarked that: "Septuagesima has an Epistle which warns us that it is never too late to be damned and a Gospel which tells us that it is never too late to be saved." (The Epistles & Gospels, p. 96). How right he was!
Let us look briefly at the Epistle and the Gospel.
1. In 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 the apostle Paul makes use of illustrations from the athletic contest (Isthmian Games) and from boxing to make important points about the "running & disciplining of the Christian life." As the athlete must exercise self-discipline and be rightly focused in order to run for the prize, so also the authentic and committed Christian must exercise moral discipline and look constantly to the goal of his journey, the prize of being with the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, as the boxer is not to indulge in shadow-boxing or to throw punches aimlessly, but to make all punches count, so the Christian is to punch successfully, in this case not another but himself by constant moral and spiritual disciplinary blows.
In verse 27 he makes a very personal and profoundly challenging statement: "I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself
should be disqualified." So Knox wrote of an Epistle that warns us it is
never too late to be damned.
2. In Matthew 20:1-16 we read the Parable of the Vineyard and the Labourers and, though it presents a familiar picture of Jewish life, it is nevertheless full of surprises. The purpose of the parable is to teach how God receives people graciously into his kingdom.
The first surprise is that the employer himself (not a servant of his) goes down to the market square to recruit workers for his vineyard. And he does so not once but several times, hiring men at different times of the day.
The second surprise is that at the end of the day when the workers are paid the employer pays those whom he hired last a full day's pay. He is a generous employer.
And the third surprise is that we are told about the reaction of those who had worked all day and were paid the same as those who worked only part of the day. The answer to their complaint is that they were paid what they were promised and that this amount was good pay for a day's work.
This Parable is all about the grace of God who welcomes into his kingdom, under conditions which he alone sets, people of different kinds and achievements. To stand in the kingdom of God does not depend in any way at all on human merit but upon God's call and mercy, generosity and justice. God welcomes "late comers" as well as "early comers" into his kingdom. In the words of Knox, "it is never too late to be saved."
3. Conclusion. In terms of preparation for Lent, these two Bible readings proclaim to us two sides of the one divine coin of truth. On the one hand we cannot earn our way into God's kingdom for it is wholly and totally by grace and mercy. On the other hand, in the kingdom we are to live as befits servants of the King, that is disciplined, obedient, holy and righteous lives.
"I would not work my soul to save for that my Lord has done, but I would work like any slave for love of God's dear Son."
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon January 22nd 2002
Friday, January 18, 2002
EPIPHANY AT CANA OF GALILEE
In the Eucharistic Lectionary of "The Book of Common Prayer" (1662) for the Second Sunday after the Feast of the Epiphany is John 2:1-1. The American 1928 edition of the BCP has transferred this Gospel to the Third Sunday and made Mark 1:1-11 the Gospel for the Second Sunday. In 2002, due to the early arrival of Septuagesima John 2:1-11 will probably not be heard this year in those parishes which use the American 1928 Lectionary.
Certainly there was a marvellous Epiphany at the river Jordan after Jesus was baptized by John and this is why Mark 1:1-11 was chosen by the American revisers in the 1920s. The unique Sonship of Jesus was revealed and manifested by the Voice of the Father from heaven and by the descent of the Holy Ghost as a dove upon him.
What happened at Cana of Galilee after Jesus had been baptized, had spent 40 days in the wilderness and had called men to be his disciples is a further Epiphany, or shewing forth of his true identity and vocation.
As at the first Epiphany when the visiting Magi gazed upon the infant Jesus so now at this third Epiphany, the mother of Jesus is present. The scene is a Jewish home in Cana on a Saturday evening after the Sabbath had ended at dusk. There is a wedding feast to which Mary, Jesus and his band of disciples have been invited. Apparently, the band of disciples were not on the original guest list and so the wine intended only for a small reception did not last long!
Mary is conscious of the embarrassment of her friends, the hosts, and instinctively looks to Jesus for help. What kind of help he could provide she probably did not know, but help she knew was required. And so she bluntly tells him that "they have not any wine."
Jesus speaks to his mother in a way which, both in the Greek of the New Testament and in English translation, sounds harsh. Yet Mary did not seem bothered by that reply and proceeded to say to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." In fact Jesus used a Semitic idiom (see 2 Samuel 16:10; Mark 5:7 & Luke 8:28) and form of speech which expresses a desire to be left in peace and is not either harsh or rude.
"Woman, what I have to do with thee?" is best rendered as "Do not interfere with me, mother." And then the reason why this should be so is given, "Mine hour [time] is not yet come." What we do not have is the tome of voice and the facial expression of Jesus which must have been reassuring to Mary.
"Mine hour" or "my time" is a reference to the doing of the Father's will that will be fulfilled and completed by his death and subsequent glorification, which is the true "hour/time". Until that future moment his actions are signs of what is to be and his words are parables of what is to be. Thus what Jesus is really saying is that he is a man under the authority of his heavenly Father and he can only act at Cana in accordance with the will of his Father. He can only help the hosts if the Father directs him so to do.
And the Father directed him to act and to do so in a way that even Mary his beloved mother did not envisage. In what he did for those folks, Jesus also provided an Epiphany, a shewing forth of his true identity, as the Only-Begotten Son of the Father made man.
For this act of compassion and SIGN of his identity, Jesus made use of the six stone waterpots - now nearly empty - provided for the washing of the hands of the guests at the feast. He ordered the waiters at the feast to fill the six jars to the brim with water. When they had done so he asked one of them to pour out some "water" from one of the jars and take it to the head waiter for him to taste. He was most impressed with what he tasted and said to the bridegroom, "Every man serves the good wine first and the inferior wine when they are drunk; but you have kept the good wine until the present moment!"
The immense amount of water in the large stone pots that was turned into wine points to the fullness of life provided by the Gospel of the Father. And the statement of the head waiter that the new wine is better than the old points to the superiority of the Gospel era/New Covenant to that of the Law/ Old Covenant.
In the Fourth Gospel the revealing, redeeming and compassionate actions/miracles of Jesus are consistently named "signs" (2:23; 4:54; 6:2,14,26; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18,37; 20:30).
Those who to whom the true identity of Jesus has been manifested must choose how they respond to the One who is the Incarnate Son of God, Saviour of the world, the Lord of lords and the King of kings. Mary's word is thus
apposite: "Whatever HE tells you to do, do it!"
The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon January 17, 2002
In the Eucharistic Lectionary of "The Book of Common Prayer" (1662) for the Second Sunday after the Feast of the Epiphany is John 2:1-1. The American 1928 edition of the BCP has transferred this Gospel to the Third Sunday and made Mark 1:1-11 the Gospel for the Second Sunday. In 2002, due to the early arrival of Septuagesima John 2:1-11 will probably not be heard this year in those parishes which use the American 1928 Lectionary.
Certainly there was a marvellous Epiphany at the river Jordan after Jesus was baptized by John and this is why Mark 1:1-11 was chosen by the American revisers in the 1920s. The unique Sonship of Jesus was revealed and manifested by the Voice of the Father from heaven and by the descent of the Holy Ghost as a dove upon him.
What happened at Cana of Galilee after Jesus had been baptized, had spent 40 days in the wilderness and had called men to be his disciples is a further Epiphany, or shewing forth of his true identity and vocation.
As at the first Epiphany when the visiting Magi gazed upon the infant Jesus so now at this third Epiphany, the mother of Jesus is present. The scene is a Jewish home in Cana on a Saturday evening after the Sabbath had ended at dusk. There is a wedding feast to which Mary, Jesus and his band of disciples have been invited. Apparently, the band of disciples were not on the original guest list and so the wine intended only for a small reception did not last long!
Mary is conscious of the embarrassment of her friends, the hosts, and instinctively looks to Jesus for help. What kind of help he could provide she probably did not know, but help she knew was required. And so she bluntly tells him that "they have not any wine."
Jesus speaks to his mother in a way which, both in the Greek of the New Testament and in English translation, sounds harsh. Yet Mary did not seem bothered by that reply and proceeded to say to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." In fact Jesus used a Semitic idiom (see 2 Samuel 16:10; Mark 5:7 & Luke 8:28) and form of speech which expresses a desire to be left in peace and is not either harsh or rude.
"Woman, what I have to do with thee?" is best rendered as "Do not interfere with me, mother." And then the reason why this should be so is given, "Mine hour [time] is not yet come." What we do not have is the tome of voice and the facial expression of Jesus which must have been reassuring to Mary.
"Mine hour" or "my time" is a reference to the doing of the Father's will that will be fulfilled and completed by his death and subsequent glorification, which is the true "hour/time". Until that future moment his actions are signs of what is to be and his words are parables of what is to be. Thus what Jesus is really saying is that he is a man under the authority of his heavenly Father and he can only act at Cana in accordance with the will of his Father. He can only help the hosts if the Father directs him so to do.
And the Father directed him to act and to do so in a way that even Mary his beloved mother did not envisage. In what he did for those folks, Jesus also provided an Epiphany, a shewing forth of his true identity, as the Only-Begotten Son of the Father made man.
For this act of compassion and SIGN of his identity, Jesus made use of the six stone waterpots - now nearly empty - provided for the washing of the hands of the guests at the feast. He ordered the waiters at the feast to fill the six jars to the brim with water. When they had done so he asked one of them to pour out some "water" from one of the jars and take it to the head waiter for him to taste. He was most impressed with what he tasted and said to the bridegroom, "Every man serves the good wine first and the inferior wine when they are drunk; but you have kept the good wine until the present moment!"
The immense amount of water in the large stone pots that was turned into wine points to the fullness of life provided by the Gospel of the Father. And the statement of the head waiter that the new wine is better than the old points to the superiority of the Gospel era/New Covenant to that of the Law/ Old Covenant.
In the Fourth Gospel the revealing, redeeming and compassionate actions/miracles of Jesus are consistently named "signs" (2:23; 4:54; 6:2,14,26; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18,37; 20:30).
Those who to whom the true identity of Jesus has been manifested must choose how they respond to the One who is the Incarnate Son of God, Saviour of the world, the Lord of lords and the King of kings. Mary's word is thus
apposite: "Whatever HE tells you to do, do it!"
The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon January 17, 2002
Saturday, January 12, 2002
Epiphany 1 The Incarnate Son shews forth & manifests the relation of the Father & the Son
In the Eucharistic Lectionary of the classic Book of Common Prayer the Gospel for the first Sunday after the Feast of the Epiphany is Luke 2:41-52.
This is the account of the visit of Jesus, at the age of 12, with his parents, Mary & Joseph, to the Feast of the Passover at the Temple in Jerusalem. It was his first visit there since the Presentation when he was an infant. But now having reached the age of maturity in Judaism, Jesus makes his first visit to a Festival in the Temple. The Law prescribed that Jewish males should attend three Festivals each year: Passover, Pentecost & Tabernacles (see Deuteronomy 16:16). However, it had become normal for those from outlying areas to attend only one, usually the Passover. Mary went out of godly piety for she was not required by the Law to go.
He went up taken by his parents in the caravan [large group journeying together] that traveled from Nazareth to Jerusalem. It was common for the women to travel together with the children and the men separately. As they approached Jerusalem we can imagine them singing the "Songs of Degrees" (Psalms 120-134). In Jerusalem, the men and women would be separated and in different accommodations.
When the time came for the caravan to begin its return journey, Mary assumed that Jesus was with the men and Joseph presumed he was with his mother. But Jesus was on one of the terraces in the Temple listening to the leaders of the Jews from the Sanhedrin who offered teaching and answered questions. So it was only when Joseph and Mary were well into the journey that they discovered that Jesus was not with them and they returned immediately to Jerusalem to find him.
They found him in the Temple participating in the informal teaching sessions held there at the latter part of the Festival. And further, they found that he had caused something of a minor sensation as a young man because of the depth of his understanding of the Law and the Prophets revealed in his questions to the teachers of the Jews.
Mary obviously remembered very well the short conversation that she had with Jesus when they found him there. From here Luke received it and put it into his Gospel.
Both relieved and annoyed, Mary asked Jesus: "Son, who have you treated us so? Behold your father and I have been looking for you anxiously."
In his reply Jesus expresses surprise that his parents did not know WHERE to find him. His reply obviously surprised her and Joseph: " How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house [or engaged in my Father's business]?"
"Where should a child be but in his father's house? And my Father is GOD!" is what he says.
This question and statement from the Twelve Year Old surprised them and at that moment they did not realize what he meant. But Mary who kept these words in her heart and pondered them understood them later.
It is notable that the first recorded words of the Messiah, the Incarnate Son, are an expression ( an epiphany) of his divine Sonship as Man.
We need to focus on the word "Son." Most certainly Jesus was Mary's Son, conceived in her womb, born from her body, suckled at her breasts. Yet Joseph was not his birth father, but his (gracious) adoptive father. Before his conception in the womb the babe whom Joseph named Jesus existed as the only-begotten Son of the Almighty Father, creator of heaven and earth.
Here in the Temple Jesus is conscious of his unique relation to the Father and thus he speaks in a manner that no Jew would normally speak, even when in the closest communion with God. "I must be [it is necessary that] in MY Father's house [or, engaged in his business]." This is a relation that is of a different kind than his being a son of Abraham and therefore a son of the God of Abraham.
Yet although it is a unique consciousness of a relation to God as "my father" it is still the consciousness of a twelve-year old and not a thirty-year old. For after this holy incident Luke tells us that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man." His consciousness of his unique relation was to grow and mature even as he grew and matured in his manhood. And this occurred as he lived under the Law of Moses and in obedience to his parents.
As readers of the Gospels we have to wait about 18 years for the next Epiphany - the manifestation of Jesus as the Incarnate Son at his Baptism by John in the river Jordan.
By faith we are to live in this age in the light and the power of the Epiphany, for what the Gospels record has occurred and the Lord Jesus Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon January 12 2002
In the Eucharistic Lectionary of the classic Book of Common Prayer the Gospel for the first Sunday after the Feast of the Epiphany is Luke 2:41-52.
This is the account of the visit of Jesus, at the age of 12, with his parents, Mary & Joseph, to the Feast of the Passover at the Temple in Jerusalem. It was his first visit there since the Presentation when he was an infant. But now having reached the age of maturity in Judaism, Jesus makes his first visit to a Festival in the Temple. The Law prescribed that Jewish males should attend three Festivals each year: Passover, Pentecost & Tabernacles (see Deuteronomy 16:16). However, it had become normal for those from outlying areas to attend only one, usually the Passover. Mary went out of godly piety for she was not required by the Law to go.
He went up taken by his parents in the caravan [large group journeying together] that traveled from Nazareth to Jerusalem. It was common for the women to travel together with the children and the men separately. As they approached Jerusalem we can imagine them singing the "Songs of Degrees" (Psalms 120-134). In Jerusalem, the men and women would be separated and in different accommodations.
When the time came for the caravan to begin its return journey, Mary assumed that Jesus was with the men and Joseph presumed he was with his mother. But Jesus was on one of the terraces in the Temple listening to the leaders of the Jews from the Sanhedrin who offered teaching and answered questions. So it was only when Joseph and Mary were well into the journey that they discovered that Jesus was not with them and they returned immediately to Jerusalem to find him.
They found him in the Temple participating in the informal teaching sessions held there at the latter part of the Festival. And further, they found that he had caused something of a minor sensation as a young man because of the depth of his understanding of the Law and the Prophets revealed in his questions to the teachers of the Jews.
Mary obviously remembered very well the short conversation that she had with Jesus when they found him there. From here Luke received it and put it into his Gospel.
Both relieved and annoyed, Mary asked Jesus: "Son, who have you treated us so? Behold your father and I have been looking for you anxiously."
In his reply Jesus expresses surprise that his parents did not know WHERE to find him. His reply obviously surprised her and Joseph: " How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house [or engaged in my Father's business]?"
"Where should a child be but in his father's house? And my Father is GOD!" is what he says.
This question and statement from the Twelve Year Old surprised them and at that moment they did not realize what he meant. But Mary who kept these words in her heart and pondered them understood them later.
It is notable that the first recorded words of the Messiah, the Incarnate Son, are an expression ( an epiphany) of his divine Sonship as Man.
We need to focus on the word "Son." Most certainly Jesus was Mary's Son, conceived in her womb, born from her body, suckled at her breasts. Yet Joseph was not his birth father, but his (gracious) adoptive father. Before his conception in the womb the babe whom Joseph named Jesus existed as the only-begotten Son of the Almighty Father, creator of heaven and earth.
Here in the Temple Jesus is conscious of his unique relation to the Father and thus he speaks in a manner that no Jew would normally speak, even when in the closest communion with God. "I must be [it is necessary that] in MY Father's house [or, engaged in his business]." This is a relation that is of a different kind than his being a son of Abraham and therefore a son of the God of Abraham.
Yet although it is a unique consciousness of a relation to God as "my father" it is still the consciousness of a twelve-year old and not a thirty-year old. For after this holy incident Luke tells us that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man." His consciousness of his unique relation was to grow and mature even as he grew and matured in his manhood. And this occurred as he lived under the Law of Moses and in obedience to his parents.
As readers of the Gospels we have to wait about 18 years for the next Epiphany - the manifestation of Jesus as the Incarnate Son at his Baptism by John in the river Jordan.
By faith we are to live in this age in the light and the power of the Epiphany, for what the Gospels record has occurred and the Lord Jesus Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon January 12 2002
Wednesday, January 09, 2002
Lambeth Palace confirms that Archbishop George will retire in October 2002
[a piece written for my American friends]
On Tuesday January 8 the BBC News announced that Lambeth Palace had confirmed that Dr George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, will retire at the end of October 2002. Then on Radio 4 it hosted discussions about whether the Church of England should be dis-established. The person who spoke against this was Dr Alistair McGrath of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. Later on the evening news on the various TV Channels the same announcement was made with speculation as to who would succeed him.
The process of choosing a Bishop in the National and Established Church of England is very different from that in the Episcopal Church of the USA. The whole process is wrapped in secrecy and is ultimately the choice of the Queen on the advice of her Prime Minister. We recall that when it was announced that George Carey was to be the new Archbishop in 1991 most people were taken by surprise for they had not realized that he was even being considered.
The Prime Minister is provided with a short List of Names in a specific order by a Commission made up of senior bishops and lay persons from the General Synod of the Church of England. This Commission is committed to secrecy and its members do not comment after their meetings or share information with people outside the membership. On receiving the List the Prime Minister can reject all names thereon or put them in a different order. When he presents a name to the Queen she must as a constitutional monarch accept the advice of her Prime Minister. Only then is contact made with the person so named and accepted. And technically he has the right to say "no."
The persons considered by the Commission must fulfill the basic criteria as set forth in canon law for candidates for the epsicopate or they must be already bishops. We recall that Thomas Cranmer, editor of the first Book of Common Prayer, was an Oxford don and in priest's orders before being ordained and consecrated the archbishop of Canterbury. The criteria in English canon law prevent the appointment of priests or bishops from overseas unless they have been ordained and served in the Church of England.
The names being mentioned by the media and in the church press and by members of General Synod include the following. In providing them I must make the point that even as the appointment of George Carey was a complete surprise so may be that of the next archbishop.
It is possible that the commission and the Prime Minister will look for a man who is in favor of the ordination of women and who will be prepared to be the chief consecrator of the first woman bishop for the Church of England (say in 2005). They may also look for someone who will be supportive of the Anglican Communion of Churches and wish to be deeply involved in its oversight. But chiefly they will be choosing the diocesan bishop of the diocese of Canterbury (and not the equivalent of an ECUSA presiding bishop who has no diocese).
We shall have to patient for six months or more, perhaps up to a year, to find out who it is that the Prime Minister chooses and the Queen approves.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon Jan 9 2002
[a piece written for my American friends]
On Tuesday January 8 the BBC News announced that Lambeth Palace had confirmed that Dr George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, will retire at the end of October 2002. Then on Radio 4 it hosted discussions about whether the Church of England should be dis-established. The person who spoke against this was Dr Alistair McGrath of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. Later on the evening news on the various TV Channels the same announcement was made with speculation as to who would succeed him.
The process of choosing a Bishop in the National and Established Church of England is very different from that in the Episcopal Church of the USA. The whole process is wrapped in secrecy and is ultimately the choice of the Queen on the advice of her Prime Minister. We recall that when it was announced that George Carey was to be the new Archbishop in 1991 most people were taken by surprise for they had not realized that he was even being considered.
The Prime Minister is provided with a short List of Names in a specific order by a Commission made up of senior bishops and lay persons from the General Synod of the Church of England. This Commission is committed to secrecy and its members do not comment after their meetings or share information with people outside the membership. On receiving the List the Prime Minister can reject all names thereon or put them in a different order. When he presents a name to the Queen she must as a constitutional monarch accept the advice of her Prime Minister. Only then is contact made with the person so named and accepted. And technically he has the right to say "no."
The persons considered by the Commission must fulfill the basic criteria as set forth in canon law for candidates for the epsicopate or they must be already bishops. We recall that Thomas Cranmer, editor of the first Book of Common Prayer, was an Oxford don and in priest's orders before being ordained and consecrated the archbishop of Canterbury. The criteria in English canon law prevent the appointment of priests or bishops from overseas unless they have been ordained and served in the Church of England.
The names being mentioned by the media and in the church press and by members of General Synod include the following. In providing them I must make the point that even as the appointment of George Carey was a complete surprise so may be that of the next archbishop.
It is possible that the commission and the Prime Minister will look for a man who is in favor of the ordination of women and who will be prepared to be the chief consecrator of the first woman bishop for the Church of England (say in 2005). They may also look for someone who will be supportive of the Anglican Communion of Churches and wish to be deeply involved in its oversight. But chiefly they will be choosing the diocesan bishop of the diocese of Canterbury (and not the equivalent of an ECUSA presiding bishop who has no diocese).
The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres.
He is a very capable and learned man but is regarded as less than an enthusiast for General Synod and its workings. Further, he is not supportive of women bishops.
The Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt.
He is a thoughtful and pastoral man, whose name has been attached to a controversial Study of Marriage Policy for the C of E. He favors the ordination of women.
The Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones.
He is an evangelical who is liked by the Prime Minister and he is supportive of women's ordination.
The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali.
He was a bishop in Pakistan before working in the Church of England. He is intellectually capable and is chairing the latest official Commission on Women Bishops. He is in favor of women's ordination. His appointment would make the C of E appear more multi-racial.
The Bishop of St Albans, Christopher Herbert.
He is very committed to women ' ordination and has a wide following.
The Archbishop of Wales, Rowan Williams.
He is a former Oxford Professor of Theology. He is very committed to the ordination of women.
We shall have to patient for six months or more, perhaps up to a year, to find out who it is that the Prime Minister chooses and the Queen approves.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon Jan 9 2002
Monday, January 07, 2002
[the ECUSA bishops will discuss "flying bishops" in March and FiF & AAC are talking of them. Here is my old friend Roger Beckwith on the topic]
Evangelicals, flying bishops and the future
R.T. Beckwith
Published from Oxford Comments, 310 Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 7NR.
Evangelicals are not renowned for the important place in their thinking which they give to bishops. The local congregation and its pastor, with his traditional freehold, are much more central for them. In the local parish they can provide biblical teaching and worship as they think suitable, and can maintain fellowship with like-minded parishes elsewhere, in and out of the diocese. The role of the bishop is apt to be seen as just providing diocesan administration, especially of a financial sort, and making occasional visits to confirm adolescent and adult believers.
Such a long-range and intermittent relationship with the bishop is very different from the theological ideal, according to which the bishop, like the presbyter, is a pastor and teacher, and should be the chief pastor and teacher in his diocese. Both bishop and presbyter find their origin in the presbyter-bishop of the New Testament, and should be doing similar work to each other, co-operatively, even if in somewhat different spheres. The problem is that, with so many bishops and Evangelical clergy out of sympathy with one another because of their conflicting views, the bishop is often regarded by the incumbent as a threat more than a support, and close relations are consequently avoided.
The Anglo-Catholic incumbent sees the bishop in a rather different light. Since the Anglo-Catholic's primary concern is not for the ministry of the word but for the ministry of the sacraments, he can contemplate close relations even with a bishop of very different views, provided that he too ministers valid sacraments. With that proviso, he can fairly happily think of himself as the delegate in his parish of the diocesan bishop, and as a member of the bishop's team of clergy, working towards common goals throughout the diocese.
When, however, a bishop starts to ordain or license women priests, he is seen by the Anglo-Catholic as causing a schism in his diocesan team, by introducing among them those who will minister sacraments which are at the very least dubious, and quite possibly invalid. In the Anglo-Catholic's eyes, this is even more serious than false teaching, and causes him to look for a different bishop. The creation of the Provincial Episcopal Visitors (PEVs), popularly called 'Flying Bishops', under the 1993 Act of Synod has been a response to this quest, and since the PEVs appointed have all up to now been Anglo-Catholics, Anglo-Catholic clergy have naturally developed a very close relationship with them, closer indeed than they may ever have known with a bishop before. Busy though the PEVs have undoubtedly been, it has been a business with pastoral work, since they have not been burdened with diocesan administration, and this has maximized their close relation with their clergy and parishes.
Evangelical Difficulties
Evangelicals, however, have had a threefold difficulty in availing themselves of the ministry of the PEVs, despite the generous willingness of the PEVs to provide it.
The first difficulty has been the characteristic Evangelical attitude of wanting to keep bishops at long distance, and to run the work of the parish with a minimum of intervention from outside.
The second difficulty has been the hesitancy of Evangelical clergy to ask their parishes to pass the resolutions against the ministry of women priests, one or both of which is required by the Act of Synod to be passed before a request is made for alternative episcopal oversight. This hesitancy is due to the fact that even those many Evangelicals who consider the ordination of women as presbyters unbiblical would not regard it as the greatest problem facing the church, with homosexual activity and multi-faith worship being allowed and encouraged as well. To concentrate on the ordination of women would seem to show the lack of a due sense of proportion.
The third difficulty has been the fact that the existing PEVs, though excellent men, are all Anglo-Catholics, the repeated requests for an Evangelical PEV having been refused. Particularly in dioceses where the diocesan bishop is an Evangelical, sound in all respects except the ordination of women, an Evangelical parish would not be easily persuaded to ask for an Anglo-Catholic PEV instead.
But though Evangelicals have, with some exceptions, hesitated to avail themselves of the ministry of the PEVs, it is hardly possible for them to be satisfied with the status quo.
For one thing, to belong to an episcopal church but to shun the ministry of bishops is an inconsistency, which only exceptional circumstances could justify. If a bishop also is a teacher and pastor, parishes really need their bishop as well as their incumbent.
For a second thing, recent legislation has made it more important than ever for parishes to have the support of a friendly bishop. An unfriendly diocesan now has great power to interfere with the work of even strong parishes when a vacancy occurs. Under the Pastoral Measure he can suspend presentation and appoint a priest-in-charge of his own choosing; and under the Benefices Measure, even if he does not suspend presentation, he can veto the patron's and parish's choice of a new incumbent. It would be much more difficult for him to do either of these things, however, against the determimed opposition of a PEV.
And for a third thing, the repeated requests for an Evangelical PEV are tacit acknowledgement of the great benefit that this ministry has brought to Anglo-Catholics; and the desperate measures to which Evangelicals in the Newcastle and Worcester dioceses have recently been driven in the absence of any such provision (however justified in the circumstances those measures may have been) could not provide permanent solutions to the problem, except in terms of a further serious weakening of discipline and order, and might even lead to complete separation from tbe Church of England.
Necessary Developments
What, then, is the right way forward? Surely it is to work for a development of the ministry of PEVs, such as would provide for the needs of Evangelicals, without ceasing to provide for the needs of Anglo-Catholics. A development of what already exists is always easier to achieve than something completely new, and in this case the kinds of development needed are logical extensions, which ought not to be highly controversial. Regretfully, the cautious report of the Bishop of Blackburn's working party to the House of Bishops on the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, recently published, has not proposed any of these developments, and even what it has proposed has not been warmly received by those unfriendly to the Act of Synod; but that is no reason why Evangelicals, from quite outside the working party, should not propose them, or why the Archbishops (who appoint the PEVs) or the PEVs themselves should not sympathise with what they propose. Certainly, the Archbishops would rather see Evangelicals embracing the concept of PEVs in some form, than engaging any further in irregular ordinations or confirmations. And, to make this possible, as well as to give logical completeness and consistency to the concept of a PEV, the following proposals in particular would seem to be called for.
These proposals could be discussed with others in the church working to promote alternative episcopal oversight (notably with the Third Province Movement and Forward in Faith) and then, hopefully, be put forward to the Archbishops with their support. It seems quite possible that the Archbishops, who are known to appreciate the ministry of the PEVs, would sympathise with all four proposals (though there would obviously be some in the General Synod and the Archbishops' Council who would not). The question of a third province belongs to the future, but these four modest proposals could be implemented, perhaps by amendments to the Act of Synod, straight away. With determination on the part of those making the proposals, and goodwill on the part of the authorities, they can be.
(DR ROGER BECKWITH, WRITTEN IN 2000)
Evangelicals, flying bishops and the future
R.T. Beckwith
Published from Oxford Comments, 310 Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 7NR.
Evangelicals are not renowned for the important place in their thinking which they give to bishops. The local congregation and its pastor, with his traditional freehold, are much more central for them. In the local parish they can provide biblical teaching and worship as they think suitable, and can maintain fellowship with like-minded parishes elsewhere, in and out of the diocese. The role of the bishop is apt to be seen as just providing diocesan administration, especially of a financial sort, and making occasional visits to confirm adolescent and adult believers.
Such a long-range and intermittent relationship with the bishop is very different from the theological ideal, according to which the bishop, like the presbyter, is a pastor and teacher, and should be the chief pastor and teacher in his diocese. Both bishop and presbyter find their origin in the presbyter-bishop of the New Testament, and should be doing similar work to each other, co-operatively, even if in somewhat different spheres. The problem is that, with so many bishops and Evangelical clergy out of sympathy with one another because of their conflicting views, the bishop is often regarded by the incumbent as a threat more than a support, and close relations are consequently avoided.
The Anglo-Catholic incumbent sees the bishop in a rather different light. Since the Anglo-Catholic's primary concern is not for the ministry of the word but for the ministry of the sacraments, he can contemplate close relations even with a bishop of very different views, provided that he too ministers valid sacraments. With that proviso, he can fairly happily think of himself as the delegate in his parish of the diocesan bishop, and as a member of the bishop's team of clergy, working towards common goals throughout the diocese.
When, however, a bishop starts to ordain or license women priests, he is seen by the Anglo-Catholic as causing a schism in his diocesan team, by introducing among them those who will minister sacraments which are at the very least dubious, and quite possibly invalid. In the Anglo-Catholic's eyes, this is even more serious than false teaching, and causes him to look for a different bishop. The creation of the Provincial Episcopal Visitors (PEVs), popularly called 'Flying Bishops', under the 1993 Act of Synod has been a response to this quest, and since the PEVs appointed have all up to now been Anglo-Catholics, Anglo-Catholic clergy have naturally developed a very close relationship with them, closer indeed than they may ever have known with a bishop before. Busy though the PEVs have undoubtedly been, it has been a business with pastoral work, since they have not been burdened with diocesan administration, and this has maximized their close relation with their clergy and parishes.
Evangelical Difficulties
Evangelicals, however, have had a threefold difficulty in availing themselves of the ministry of the PEVs, despite the generous willingness of the PEVs to provide it.
The first difficulty has been the characteristic Evangelical attitude of wanting to keep bishops at long distance, and to run the work of the parish with a minimum of intervention from outside.
The second difficulty has been the hesitancy of Evangelical clergy to ask their parishes to pass the resolutions against the ministry of women priests, one or both of which is required by the Act of Synod to be passed before a request is made for alternative episcopal oversight. This hesitancy is due to the fact that even those many Evangelicals who consider the ordination of women as presbyters unbiblical would not regard it as the greatest problem facing the church, with homosexual activity and multi-faith worship being allowed and encouraged as well. To concentrate on the ordination of women would seem to show the lack of a due sense of proportion.
The third difficulty has been the fact that the existing PEVs, though excellent men, are all Anglo-Catholics, the repeated requests for an Evangelical PEV having been refused. Particularly in dioceses where the diocesan bishop is an Evangelical, sound in all respects except the ordination of women, an Evangelical parish would not be easily persuaded to ask for an Anglo-Catholic PEV instead.
But though Evangelicals have, with some exceptions, hesitated to avail themselves of the ministry of the PEVs, it is hardly possible for them to be satisfied with the status quo.
For one thing, to belong to an episcopal church but to shun the ministry of bishops is an inconsistency, which only exceptional circumstances could justify. If a bishop also is a teacher and pastor, parishes really need their bishop as well as their incumbent.
For a second thing, recent legislation has made it more important than ever for parishes to have the support of a friendly bishop. An unfriendly diocesan now has great power to interfere with the work of even strong parishes when a vacancy occurs. Under the Pastoral Measure he can suspend presentation and appoint a priest-in-charge of his own choosing; and under the Benefices Measure, even if he does not suspend presentation, he can veto the patron's and parish's choice of a new incumbent. It would be much more difficult for him to do either of these things, however, against the determimed opposition of a PEV.
And for a third thing, the repeated requests for an Evangelical PEV are tacit acknowledgement of the great benefit that this ministry has brought to Anglo-Catholics; and the desperate measures to which Evangelicals in the Newcastle and Worcester dioceses have recently been driven in the absence of any such provision (however justified in the circumstances those measures may have been) could not provide permanent solutions to the problem, except in terms of a further serious weakening of discipline and order, and might even lead to complete separation from tbe Church of England.
Necessary Developments
What, then, is the right way forward? Surely it is to work for a development of the ministry of PEVs, such as would provide for the needs of Evangelicals, without ceasing to provide for the needs of Anglo-Catholics. A development of what already exists is always easier to achieve than something completely new, and in this case the kinds of development needed are logical extensions, which ought not to be highly controversial. Regretfully, the cautious report of the Bishop of Blackburn's working party to the House of Bishops on the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, recently published, has not proposed any of these developments, and even what it has proposed has not been warmly received by those unfriendly to the Act of Synod; but that is no reason why Evangelicals, from quite outside the working party, should not propose them, or why the Archbishops (who appoint the PEVs) or the PEVs themselves should not sympathise with what they propose. Certainly, the Archbishops would rather see Evangelicals embracing the concept of PEVs in some form, than engaging any further in irregular ordinations or confirmations. And, to make this possible, as well as to give logical completeness and consistency to the concept of a PEV, the following proposals in particular would seem to be called for.
1. It would be logical to extend the duties of PEVs to all pastoral tasks performed by bishops, not only the confirmation of the laity (the task originally envisaged for PEVs) but also the selection of ordinands and the ordination and institution or licensing of the clergy. In some dioceses the PEVs already play a part, by permission, in selecting ordinands and in ordaining clergy, and though institution and licensing are at present witheld from them, there are insistent requests that within their constituency all these tasks should be conceded, and the Bishop of Blackburn's working party has made a slight move in this direction. The PEVs cannot ordain candidates without considering their suitability for ordination, or for the sphere where they hope to serve, so why should the diocesan bishop duplicate the PEV's role here? And the PEVs are the natural choice to institute or license clergy to the parishes in their care, especially clergy whom they have themselves ordained. From the parish's point of view, moreover, a parish needs to be able to relate to one and the same bishop on all pastoral matters.
2. It would be logical to extend the grounds on which parishes may request the ministry of a PEV from the fact that the diocesan bishop ordains women priests to the fact that he engages in other controversial forms of teaching and activity which are widely regarded by Anglicans as being in conflict with Holy Scripture, and which cause deep offence at the parochial level. Topical examples concern sexual morality and multi-faith worship. (One notes that it was homosexual permissiveness and not the ordination of women which motivated the appointment in January of "missionary bishops" for the USA by the Archbishops of Singapore and Rwanda). Frivolous or trivial objections to the diocesan bishop's ministry would of course be rejected. But sadly we live in a generation when the grounds for complaint about bishops are sometimes anything but frivolous or trivial. This extension of grounds would not prevent the parish, in appropriate cases, calling for the diocesan bishop's resignation, but it would take account of the fact that unorthodox bishops usually do not resign, even when called upon to do so by the two Archbishops (as in the case of the late Bishop E.W. Barnes of Birmingham).
3. It would be logical to provide that in future the parish's request for alternative episcopal oversight should be addressed not to the diocesan bishop (an interested party) but to the Archbishop, who would discuss it with one of his PEVs before deciding on his answer. (Technically, it would then not be "extended episcopal oversight", as it is officially called, but "extended archiepiscopal oversight", and at the same time "alternative episcopal oversight" - the popular name). The first and third of these proposals would put the PEVs on a parity with the diocesan bishops in all important pastoral matters, though administrative matters would remain for the present with the diocesan bishop. In the long run, and with sufficient back-up, the PEVs ought probably to be willing to take on administrative burdens as well, and the diocesan bishops ought to be willing to surrender them. The idea of the geographical integrity of dioceses, stressed once again by the Bishop of Blackburn's working party, is an obstacle to this, but the geographical integrity of dioceses is an entirely modern phenomenon in England (formerly dioceses often contained peculiars in the jurisdiction of bishops from elsewhere); and since the Archbishop commissions the PEV to work throughout his province, the PEV ought to be free to do so without constantly deferring to the local diocesan bishop. It should be borne in mind that the PEV is not a suffragan in the diocese of Canterbury or the diocese of York - he is a provincial suffragan, like a diocesan bishop, and ought to have the same degree of independence, subject always to his duty to the Archbishop.
4. It would be logical for the Archbishops to say publically (what has already been said privately) that, just as they have appointed Anglo-Catholic PEVs to minister to Anglo-Catholic parishes, so they woruld be willing to appoint PEVs of other schools of thought to minister to their own constituency, if there were sufficient demand for them from parishes. (We would then need to show that there is.)
These proposals could be discussed with others in the church working to promote alternative episcopal oversight (notably with the Third Province Movement and Forward in Faith) and then, hopefully, be put forward to the Archbishops with their support. It seems quite possible that the Archbishops, who are known to appreciate the ministry of the PEVs, would sympathise with all four proposals (though there would obviously be some in the General Synod and the Archbishops' Council who would not). The question of a third province belongs to the future, but these four modest proposals could be implemented, perhaps by amendments to the Act of Synod, straight away. With determination on the part of those making the proposals, and goodwill on the part of the authorities, they can be.
(DR ROGER BECKWITH, WRITTEN IN 2000)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)