An attempt to understand, but not the last word!
Here I want to reflect upon a matter that some of those who oppose or have doubts about Judge Roberts have articulated, usually with emotion, over the last three days. I refer to the conviction and feeling of some people that he does not have sufficient empathy for the disadvantaged, disabled and victims of discrimination.
[But, first, to set the context: Two days ago I circulated a “discussion starter” on “Judge Roberts and the Christian Mind” (which as I predicted was both much appreciated and also attacked with vigor). In this act of thinking aloud, I suggested that by his own commitments Roberts intended not to allow the Christian Faith to enter substantially into his mindset as he performed the duties of a Justice on the Supreme Court. Now, 2 days later, having heard the whole of his testimony and the statements of those called by the Senate as witnesses, I am quite clear that this is truly his position. And it is one that most commentators think is perfectly normal and which even the “Christian Right” seems to think is appropriate.
At the same time, I want to affirm that there seems to me no doubt but that he is an impressive human being with the kinds of skills one looks for in top-class lawyers. And I want to state again what I wrote two days ago that as far as I can tell he is a man of Christian faith and morals, who is a devout Catholic. Yet, as with many of us, his faith seems to be privatized – it is for home and family and church but not for the public square, except minimally. In his case the “mindset” that he will bring to the Court is to be one that does not allow considerations/doctrines which are part of Catholic Faith to enter substantially into his judgment. Never once in any of his replies or statements did he intimate that as a Christian man he would be guided or influenced by the Christian Faith. This said, he is amongst the best of the those available and I sincerely hope he is confirmed by the Senate.]
Now to EMPATHY.
I have had the experience on several (for me) important occasions of being required to face the question as to whether or not I truly understand, feel, have a real sense of, the pain of a person who for no fault of her/his own endures discrimination. For example, I was once interviewed for a position of professor of theology in an institution where a third or more of the students were women. And this was just before the C of E embraced the ordination of women. Certain questions to me sought to ascertain whether (without regard to my own beliefs about women in orders) I really understood their aspirations, feelings, and sensibilities and thus whether I could be sensitive to them in my teaching and attitudes. One asked if I would be willing to take therapy to ensure that I would be sensitive to these women at this stage in their lives.
Much the same kind of question has been, and is being, asked of John Roberts Esq. He has made it very clear that as a matter of law all people are equal before the law and that discrimination of various kinds is against the law. There is no problem of where his rational mind is – it is firmly in the position of equality for all. Yet the mind is not the whole soul and some people want to know where the rest of his soul is, especially where “his heart” is. Does he actually feel the pain of people who are obviously still in modern America the recipients of discrimination? What certain people are looking for is to see in him, to sense within him, genuine empathy with the real victims of discrimination. If they see this, then, I guess, they will see him as a full human being and have a wholly different evaluation of him.
Let us be clear. Roberts never said one word to suggest that he is a racist or a bigot or a hard-liner or a separatist or anything like this. At the level of propositional statement and intellectual clarity, he made it clear that he is all in favor of equal treatment before the law for all people. At the same time, he showed no special empathy for those who, in the American situation, have not been always fully included within the American dream, liberties, rights and opportunities, and who fear that the present trend of the Court is to erode the “freedoms” they have gained through painful experiences.
I suggest that to have such empathy is not of necessity to be biased or to judge a case in advance; rather, it is to allow all the faculties of the soul (the affections and will as well as the intellect) to function together in the way one looks at people and hears what they say. In court, any case must be judged according to the constitution, the law, precedents, arguments offered etc; yet this does not exclude the exercise of the imagination and emotions in feeling a special identification with the disadvantaged, poor and outcasts. After all, God as the Judge, is portrayed in the Bible as the One who judges righteously but who has a special place in “his heart” for the poor and needy.
Peter Toon September 15 2005
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
JUDGE ROBERTS and THE CHRISTIAN MIND
Thoughts expressed to promote better thoughts by others
It so happens that I have been re-reading the book, The Christian Mind (1963) by Harry Blamires, at the same time as listening with great care to the Senate hearings with respect to the Presidential nominee for Chief Justice, Judge Roberts. And the question that I could not avoid facing was this: Does Judge Roberts, the Roman Catholic layman, reveal a Christian mind in his answers to the many questions put to him over 6 hours or so on Tuesday, September 13? [It may be suggested that this question is most appropriate because the political “Christian right” is spending millions of dollars supporting his nomination since he is reckoned to be a conservative and Christian judge.]
I am using the expression, “the Christian mind,” as Mr. Blamires uses it. That is, a mind whose thinking, structure and basis is formed by the sure facts of the Christian Faith, that is from the Divine Revelation recorded in the Bible and affirmed in Tradition. In other words, a mind that it not secularized (conditioned by this- worldly realities) but that sees everything in terms of the living God, the Creator, Judge and Redeemer, of heaven and hell as ultimate and final realities, of the salvation given through and in Jesus Christ, of the Church of Jesus Christ against which hell cannot prevail, and of this world and its norms as an evil age and under the just judgment of God.
Mr. Blamires recognized and lamented (back in 1963) that the Christian mind as such seemed not to exist, since Christians in public life tended to think and act in secular terms. He wrote: “As a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion – its morality, its worship, its spiritual character; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, the view that relates all human problems – social, political, cultural – to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view that sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of heaven and hell.”
Now we turn to John Roberts, aged 50, a Judge and a fine legal mind. It is difficult to dislike him for he is so well mannered and pleasant; and it is easy to admire him for in all areas, of intellect and speech, for example, he is attractive as a human being. The professional associations of lawyers speak very highly of him and his track record as a lawyer is first class. I would vote for him, if I were a Senator!
Judge Roberts makes it clear that he is a Christian, a Catholic Christian. Thus we may regard him as a possible test case to see whether the Christian mind is present in a Christian lawyer, who is strongly supported for very high position by many who profess to be Christians, evangelicals and R C’s, in the USA.
Let it be said first of all, that there is every reason to believe that in his private life and the way he relates to his wife and two adopted children he acts as a Christian. The same observation may surely also be made of how he relates to his neighbors and colleagues and friends, and to the poor. He gives the impression of being not only a decent man but also a genuine Christian man.
Now, back to Harry Blamires for a moment. He accepted that thousands of people he knew in the USA and England had a Christian ethic, piety, morality and spirituality; but, he also argued with abundant examples to make his case that in most Christian persons the Christian mind or mindset (as different from a Christian ethic, piety and spirituality) is missing.
Now let us return to Judge Roberts. In the Senate hearings he made it absolutely clear that the Christian Faith (the Catholic Faith) would have no bearing on his work at all as a Justice, as the Chief Justice, on the Supreme Court. He said that he would look to the Constitution, to the tradition of interpretations of the Constitution, to precedence, to the arguments presented by the lawyers appearing before the Court, to reason, and so on, but he would not allow the tenets and revealed facts of his Christian Faith to be any part of any decision-making or judging.
In Mr. Blamires terms, if I understand his argument right, here is an example of a Christian who has decided that in the workplace, and here it is in the Supreme Court, the Christian Faith has no part or place in the thinking of the Justices. Judge Roberts does not intend to bring a Christian mind to bear on the Judging in which he will be intensely involved. This may be called in American terms “separation of church and state.” But for Mr. Blamires it is a clear example of a conservative secularism, in contrast to the progressive secularism of his Democratic questioners and of four or so of the Justices on the Court now.
Perhaps the argument will be made that the Constitution is a Christian document and so to interpret the Constitution aright is to have a Christian mind and perform a Christian duty. If so then “Christian” is being used in terms of the Deism of the eighteenth century Enlightenment which was religiously held by many in the USA in the period from 1760-1800. It is hardly being used in terms of how the R C Church in its recent Catechism defines Christianity.
The relation of Christianity to the “Public Square” through the presence therein of the Christian mind in action is a major and important topic. I have merely commented on a small part of it.
Peter Toon Sept 13 2005.
It so happens that I have been re-reading the book, The Christian Mind (1963) by Harry Blamires, at the same time as listening with great care to the Senate hearings with respect to the Presidential nominee for Chief Justice, Judge Roberts. And the question that I could not avoid facing was this: Does Judge Roberts, the Roman Catholic layman, reveal a Christian mind in his answers to the many questions put to him over 6 hours or so on Tuesday, September 13? [It may be suggested that this question is most appropriate because the political “Christian right” is spending millions of dollars supporting his nomination since he is reckoned to be a conservative and Christian judge.]
I am using the expression, “the Christian mind,” as Mr. Blamires uses it. That is, a mind whose thinking, structure and basis is formed by the sure facts of the Christian Faith, that is from the Divine Revelation recorded in the Bible and affirmed in Tradition. In other words, a mind that it not secularized (conditioned by this- worldly realities) but that sees everything in terms of the living God, the Creator, Judge and Redeemer, of heaven and hell as ultimate and final realities, of the salvation given through and in Jesus Christ, of the Church of Jesus Christ against which hell cannot prevail, and of this world and its norms as an evil age and under the just judgment of God.
Mr. Blamires recognized and lamented (back in 1963) that the Christian mind as such seemed not to exist, since Christians in public life tended to think and act in secular terms. He wrote: “As a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion – its morality, its worship, its spiritual character; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, the view that relates all human problems – social, political, cultural – to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view that sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of heaven and hell.”
Now we turn to John Roberts, aged 50, a Judge and a fine legal mind. It is difficult to dislike him for he is so well mannered and pleasant; and it is easy to admire him for in all areas, of intellect and speech, for example, he is attractive as a human being. The professional associations of lawyers speak very highly of him and his track record as a lawyer is first class. I would vote for him, if I were a Senator!
Judge Roberts makes it clear that he is a Christian, a Catholic Christian. Thus we may regard him as a possible test case to see whether the Christian mind is present in a Christian lawyer, who is strongly supported for very high position by many who profess to be Christians, evangelicals and R C’s, in the USA.
Let it be said first of all, that there is every reason to believe that in his private life and the way he relates to his wife and two adopted children he acts as a Christian. The same observation may surely also be made of how he relates to his neighbors and colleagues and friends, and to the poor. He gives the impression of being not only a decent man but also a genuine Christian man.
Now, back to Harry Blamires for a moment. He accepted that thousands of people he knew in the USA and England had a Christian ethic, piety, morality and spirituality; but, he also argued with abundant examples to make his case that in most Christian persons the Christian mind or mindset (as different from a Christian ethic, piety and spirituality) is missing.
Now let us return to Judge Roberts. In the Senate hearings he made it absolutely clear that the Christian Faith (the Catholic Faith) would have no bearing on his work at all as a Justice, as the Chief Justice, on the Supreme Court. He said that he would look to the Constitution, to the tradition of interpretations of the Constitution, to precedence, to the arguments presented by the lawyers appearing before the Court, to reason, and so on, but he would not allow the tenets and revealed facts of his Christian Faith to be any part of any decision-making or judging.
In Mr. Blamires terms, if I understand his argument right, here is an example of a Christian who has decided that in the workplace, and here it is in the Supreme Court, the Christian Faith has no part or place in the thinking of the Justices. Judge Roberts does not intend to bring a Christian mind to bear on the Judging in which he will be intensely involved. This may be called in American terms “separation of church and state.” But for Mr. Blamires it is a clear example of a conservative secularism, in contrast to the progressive secularism of his Democratic questioners and of four or so of the Justices on the Court now.
Perhaps the argument will be made that the Constitution is a Christian document and so to interpret the Constitution aright is to have a Christian mind and perform a Christian duty. If so then “Christian” is being used in terms of the Deism of the eighteenth century Enlightenment which was religiously held by many in the USA in the period from 1760-1800. It is hardly being used in terms of how the R C Church in its recent Catechism defines Christianity.
The relation of Christianity to the “Public Square” through the presence therein of the Christian mind in action is a major and important topic. I have merely commented on a small part of it.
Peter Toon Sept 13 2005.
Monday, September 12, 2005
What unites Anglicans? And What can unite Anglicans?
A discussion Starter
Until the 1960s what primarily united Anglicans was the use of the Book of Common Prayer. While there was a comprehensiveness in terms of how used, there was unity in the use of the BCP not only in English but also in 150 other languages. There was a common shape, common content, and common basic doctrine, even whilst there were differences in style and ceremonial.
Related to the use of the BCP was the acceptance of it along with the Ordinal (inside its covers) and the Articles of Religion (inside its covers), each as a Formulary of the Anglican Way. That is, giving form and substance to the Anglican expression of Reformed Catholicism.
Related also to the use of the BCP were historical ties to the Church of England with “bonds of affection” and an acceptance of a common Ministry (because of the use of the One Ordinal).
Since the 1960s with (a) the production of Books of Alternative Services and the developing right of choice in local liturgy, and (b) the assertion of autonomy by Anglican Provinces in order to go ahead with innovations, there has been less and less common glue to hold the now 38 provinces together and within provinces to hold dioceses and parishes together. In this context much has been made of the “instruments of unity” [ the Arch of Cant., the Lambeth Conf., the A.C.C., and the Primates’ Meeting], but they are unable to hold together the Anglican Family in its current dysfunctionality and disarray.
Nowhere is this confusion clearer than in North America, where there is not only a great variety of rites and services but there is also a growing number of jurisdictions/denominations and groups. In this “each man does what is right in his own eyes” and claims that his way and opinion is as good as anyone else’s. Here Anglican unity is a concept that if taken seriously is then put on the back burner for the problems relating it to it are so severe. Centrifugal forces simply are more powerful than centripetal forces and the autonomous individualism of the culture and the emphasis on rights and the like reinforce the centrifugalism.
In another essay I have proposed that to begin to unify “orthodox” or “would-be orthodox” North American Anglicans/Episcopalians (inside and outside the two official Provinces of the Anglican Communion) one way is to dig again the wells of Abraham (see Genesis!) and to get all to agree to use the same Rites for services, but allowing for the use of the same Rite in both its traditional English form and in a contemporary equivalent – so that the same content and doctrine are preserved. Thus the One God would be addressed in doctrinal and liturgical harmony but under the two ways of “Thou art” and “YOU are”! These would of course not be mixed in the one service but be available as the two forms of the one service.
Without one Basic Rite there cannot be unity in the Anglican Way. Merely to agree on the authority of Scripture places Anglicans alongside thousands of groups; agreement on the Creeds places Anglicans alongside hundreds of groups; raising the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral to be the unifier gives no unity, for this short statement is intended to say wherein Anglicans will unite with other jurisdictions and it presupposes for Anglicans the traditional Formularies.
Some say what we need to unite is not a complete Rite but a common shape or structure for the Rites so that each parish puts into the common shape what it seems appropriate. This is a recipe for confusion and division and the majoring on minors!
Belonging to a specific tradition – the Anglican Way – brings with it a certain commitment to what it is that has made the Anglican Way what it is and what it can be. The Common Prayer Tradition is uniquely the primary tradition of the C of E and the Anglican Way!
If the separated brethren of the Anglican Way in North America could agree for a ten year period to use a Common Rite (i.e. the classic BCP or the classic BCP in contemporary language) this would provide a common basis for negotiating further means of unity in practical matters and in real terms.
A contemporary language version of the classic BCP (as used in North America) could be produced reasonably quickly and this proposal could be ready to be set in place after the General Convention of June 2006.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon Sept 12 2005 petertoon@msn.com
Until the 1960s what primarily united Anglicans was the use of the Book of Common Prayer. While there was a comprehensiveness in terms of how used, there was unity in the use of the BCP not only in English but also in 150 other languages. There was a common shape, common content, and common basic doctrine, even whilst there were differences in style and ceremonial.
Related to the use of the BCP was the acceptance of it along with the Ordinal (inside its covers) and the Articles of Religion (inside its covers), each as a Formulary of the Anglican Way. That is, giving form and substance to the Anglican expression of Reformed Catholicism.
Related also to the use of the BCP were historical ties to the Church of England with “bonds of affection” and an acceptance of a common Ministry (because of the use of the One Ordinal).
Since the 1960s with (a) the production of Books of Alternative Services and the developing right of choice in local liturgy, and (b) the assertion of autonomy by Anglican Provinces in order to go ahead with innovations, there has been less and less common glue to hold the now 38 provinces together and within provinces to hold dioceses and parishes together. In this context much has been made of the “instruments of unity” [ the Arch of Cant., the Lambeth Conf., the A.C.C., and the Primates’ Meeting], but they are unable to hold together the Anglican Family in its current dysfunctionality and disarray.
Nowhere is this confusion clearer than in North America, where there is not only a great variety of rites and services but there is also a growing number of jurisdictions/denominations and groups. In this “each man does what is right in his own eyes” and claims that his way and opinion is as good as anyone else’s. Here Anglican unity is a concept that if taken seriously is then put on the back burner for the problems relating it to it are so severe. Centrifugal forces simply are more powerful than centripetal forces and the autonomous individualism of the culture and the emphasis on rights and the like reinforce the centrifugalism.
In another essay I have proposed that to begin to unify “orthodox” or “would-be orthodox” North American Anglicans/Episcopalians (inside and outside the two official Provinces of the Anglican Communion) one way is to dig again the wells of Abraham (see Genesis!) and to get all to agree to use the same Rites for services, but allowing for the use of the same Rite in both its traditional English form and in a contemporary equivalent – so that the same content and doctrine are preserved. Thus the One God would be addressed in doctrinal and liturgical harmony but under the two ways of “Thou art” and “YOU are”! These would of course not be mixed in the one service but be available as the two forms of the one service.
Without one Basic Rite there cannot be unity in the Anglican Way. Merely to agree on the authority of Scripture places Anglicans alongside thousands of groups; agreement on the Creeds places Anglicans alongside hundreds of groups; raising the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral to be the unifier gives no unity, for this short statement is intended to say wherein Anglicans will unite with other jurisdictions and it presupposes for Anglicans the traditional Formularies.
Some say what we need to unite is not a complete Rite but a common shape or structure for the Rites so that each parish puts into the common shape what it seems appropriate. This is a recipe for confusion and division and the majoring on minors!
Belonging to a specific tradition – the Anglican Way – brings with it a certain commitment to what it is that has made the Anglican Way what it is and what it can be. The Common Prayer Tradition is uniquely the primary tradition of the C of E and the Anglican Way!
If the separated brethren of the Anglican Way in North America could agree for a ten year period to use a Common Rite (i.e. the classic BCP or the classic BCP in contemporary language) this would provide a common basis for negotiating further means of unity in practical matters and in real terms.
A contemporary language version of the classic BCP (as used in North America) could be produced reasonably quickly and this proposal could be ready to be set in place after the General Convention of June 2006.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon Sept 12 2005 petertoon@msn.com
Thinking Aloud
Thinking aloud – about uniting liturgically the Essentials Movement of the Anglican Church in Canada, The ECUSA Communion Network and some if not all of the streams of Anglicanism outside of the Anglican Church of Canada and the ECUSA
I am thinking aloud! I am speaking alone (but yet with I know the support of not a few individual persons who have a great heart for the Anglican Way). And, in the emotionally charged reality of modern Anglicanism, I expect to be misunderstood, for either I shall not explain myself sufficiently clearly, or my reader will pick out a sentence or phrase here or there and treat it as if it were all I have to say. Yet, knowing I walk into a minefield, I press on, because I believe the topic needs to be aired and aired now, for obvious reasons (e.g., the present Anglican crisis where centrifugal forces are much stronger than centripetal ones).
Right now in North America within the Essentials Movement, the Network movement, and the thirty or more streams of Episcopalian and Anglican expression (that may call “the Diaspora” or “the Continuum” or “the Extra-Mural Anglicans” or other names) there is no real unity in Liturgy, doctrine or discipline, but there is a unity in what is opposed (the apostasy of the ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada), and there is a general agreement as to the final authority of the Scriptures for matters of faith and conduct. Happily there is active dialogue between Canada and the USA at the leadership levels.
To bring all these Anglicans/Episcopalians into a situation where they pull in the same direction, cooperate in basics like evangelization and social service, and find a common goal will require “an act of God” together with the hearty cooperation of all groups involved. For this we must pray heartily and fervently as led by the Holy Ghost.
Happily local efforts are being made to work towards this general goal and, as an example, I cite the work of the Rev John Roddham of Seattle, who acts as a facilitator for the regular meeting of the varied streams in the North West of the USA and in Vancouver. I believe that we need more and more of such local efforts for the moves towards a working unity must rise locally and cannot be forced from above. Of course conferences and meetings of leaders cannot do any harm and may help to create centripetal forces to overcome the centrifugal ones!
Here I want to make one proposal that if worthy needs to be done, as it were, from the top in a cooperative way and offered humbly and in an attractive and meaningful way from there to the local churches in Canada and the USA.
Proposal
Where are we now?
So there is real division in worship not because of differences of churchmanship and ritual but because of the texts used. There is no doubt but that the 1979 & 1985 prayerbooks have a different doctrinal emphasis to that of the 1928 & 1960 classic editions of the BCP. Indeed, it may be argued that the major innovations since the 1970s have been made possible (or easier) because of the theological content of the new form of prayer books.
Two points are clear. First, that there is a continuing desire amongst a sizeable minority for the use of the classic editions of the BCP whether 1662, 1928 or 1960/2. Second, there is a continuing desire amongst a majority for the use of contemporary English in texts that are sound.
Therefore, what is needed – if unity is really desired – is for the churches which desire to be orthodox as reformed-Catholics (= Anglicans) to use One Rite for M P., E P., Holy Communion, etc (with of course local ceremonial and ritual emphases). And this One Rite be available in two forms, the received traditional form and the new contemporary English form, and that these two versions of the One Rite be identical in structure, shape. Here the new would be a straight literal & functional equivalency and not a similarity as in some modern liturgical texts produced in England, Ireland and Australia.
Thus in all the churches desirous to be orthodox and truly Anglican the same services would be held and experienced, with some addressing God as “Thou art” and others as “You are”, and with some being high-church and others low-church and some charismatic and others ordered. (Also the same would apply to the French speaking churches of Canada and the Spanish speaking churches in the USA and in missions.)
I think that after all the disorder and innovation since the 1970s, the Anglican Way needs a DECADE at least of order and unity. The proposal is intended to further that goal.
However, to make this goal even a possibility, what is needed right away is a carefully prepared set of texts in contemporary English, which are, as far as is possible, a functional and literal equivalent to those in the Canadian and American editions of the classic BCP. (And where there are differences between the two editions, the new contemporary edition can offer local options.)
This task if worthy is crying out to have been completed already. It is obviously urgent and needs to be ready for the aftermath of the June 2006 G C of the ECUSA. Thus, it would be good for a small working team to be established of Canadians and Americans and to be sponsored by the some of the major players in the present North American desire to recover Anglican wholeness and vitality. I think that to cover travel expenses and printing costs for an initial run of say 5,000 copies (which texts could be “tested” in the churches for a time after June 2006 before a revised edition is produced for use in the next decade) not more than $20.000.00 is required (if the team of liturgists/translators is not paid).
Anyone who wishes to know what the contemporary services could or would look and sound like is encouraged to obtain the recently published, Worshipping the Lord in the Anglican Way: Texts and Prayers from the 1928 BCP in Parallel with functional Equivalents in Contemporary English. It is available on line from anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1-800-727-1928. This does not offer texts for worship but rather texts in contemporary English as a door into the appreciation of the classic texts.
I stand ready to do all I can to make this goal into a reality.
May I say in closing that I am not speaking for the Prayer Book Societies of Canada and the USA, even though I am intimately involved with them and their cause (of keeping in print and use with understanding the classic BCP).
I look for the other participants in the renewal and reform movement to support this proposal initially. I am optimistic that they will. Where there is a will there is a way. The LORD will provide if this be his will.
Please join me in meditation and prayer to discern the will of God in this regard.
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon petertoon@msn.com Sept 11, 2005
I am thinking aloud! I am speaking alone (but yet with I know the support of not a few individual persons who have a great heart for the Anglican Way). And, in the emotionally charged reality of modern Anglicanism, I expect to be misunderstood, for either I shall not explain myself sufficiently clearly, or my reader will pick out a sentence or phrase here or there and treat it as if it were all I have to say. Yet, knowing I walk into a minefield, I press on, because I believe the topic needs to be aired and aired now, for obvious reasons (e.g., the present Anglican crisis where centrifugal forces are much stronger than centripetal ones).
Right now in North America within the Essentials Movement, the Network movement, and the thirty or more streams of Episcopalian and Anglican expression (that may call “the Diaspora” or “the Continuum” or “the Extra-Mural Anglicans” or other names) there is no real unity in Liturgy, doctrine or discipline, but there is a unity in what is opposed (the apostasy of the ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada), and there is a general agreement as to the final authority of the Scriptures for matters of faith and conduct. Happily there is active dialogue between Canada and the USA at the leadership levels.
To bring all these Anglicans/Episcopalians into a situation where they pull in the same direction, cooperate in basics like evangelization and social service, and find a common goal will require “an act of God” together with the hearty cooperation of all groups involved. For this we must pray heartily and fervently as led by the Holy Ghost.
Happily local efforts are being made to work towards this general goal and, as an example, I cite the work of the Rev John Roddham of Seattle, who acts as a facilitator for the regular meeting of the varied streams in the North West of the USA and in Vancouver. I believe that we need more and more of such local efforts for the moves towards a working unity must rise locally and cannot be forced from above. Of course conferences and meetings of leaders cannot do any harm and may help to create centripetal forces to overcome the centrifugal ones!
Here I want to make one proposal that if worthy needs to be done, as it were, from the top in a cooperative way and offered humbly and in an attractive and meaningful way from there to the local churches in Canada and the USA.
Proposal
To work towards the situation where there is One Rite in use in the North American Anglican Scene and that this One Rite is available in traditional English and contemporary English, as well as in French and Spanish.
Where are we now?
1. Canada. The first Prayer Book of the Anglican Church of Canada is the classic BCP in its edition of 1960/62. Subordinate to this is the 1985 BAS [Book of Alterative Services]. Anglicans outside the Anglican Church of Canada use the BCP of 1960/62 or its older sister, that of 1662.
2. USA. The official Prayer Book of the ECUSA is called “The Book of Common Prayer, 1979” but in shape and content and doctrine it is very much like the Canadian BAS of 1985. The authentic BCP of the American tradition is that of 1928 which was set aside in 1979. So most of the groups outside the ECUSA either use the 1928 BCP or they list it as their Formulary along with the edition of 1662.
So there is real division in worship not because of differences of churchmanship and ritual but because of the texts used. There is no doubt but that the 1979 & 1985 prayerbooks have a different doctrinal emphasis to that of the 1928 & 1960 classic editions of the BCP. Indeed, it may be argued that the major innovations since the 1970s have been made possible (or easier) because of the theological content of the new form of prayer books.
Two points are clear. First, that there is a continuing desire amongst a sizeable minority for the use of the classic editions of the BCP whether 1662, 1928 or 1960/2. Second, there is a continuing desire amongst a majority for the use of contemporary English in texts that are sound.
Therefore, what is needed – if unity is really desired – is for the churches which desire to be orthodox as reformed-Catholics (= Anglicans) to use One Rite for M P., E P., Holy Communion, etc (with of course local ceremonial and ritual emphases). And this One Rite be available in two forms, the received traditional form and the new contemporary English form, and that these two versions of the One Rite be identical in structure, shape. Here the new would be a straight literal & functional equivalency and not a similarity as in some modern liturgical texts produced in England, Ireland and Australia.
Thus in all the churches desirous to be orthodox and truly Anglican the same services would be held and experienced, with some addressing God as “Thou art” and others as “You are”, and with some being high-church and others low-church and some charismatic and others ordered. (Also the same would apply to the French speaking churches of Canada and the Spanish speaking churches in the USA and in missions.)
I think that after all the disorder and innovation since the 1970s, the Anglican Way needs a DECADE at least of order and unity. The proposal is intended to further that goal.
However, to make this goal even a possibility, what is needed right away is a carefully prepared set of texts in contemporary English, which are, as far as is possible, a functional and literal equivalent to those in the Canadian and American editions of the classic BCP. (And where there are differences between the two editions, the new contemporary edition can offer local options.)
This task if worthy is crying out to have been completed already. It is obviously urgent and needs to be ready for the aftermath of the June 2006 G C of the ECUSA. Thus, it would be good for a small working team to be established of Canadians and Americans and to be sponsored by the some of the major players in the present North American desire to recover Anglican wholeness and vitality. I think that to cover travel expenses and printing costs for an initial run of say 5,000 copies (which texts could be “tested” in the churches for a time after June 2006 before a revised edition is produced for use in the next decade) not more than $20.000.00 is required (if the team of liturgists/translators is not paid).
Anyone who wishes to know what the contemporary services could or would look and sound like is encouraged to obtain the recently published, Worshipping the Lord in the Anglican Way: Texts and Prayers from the 1928 BCP in Parallel with functional Equivalents in Contemporary English. It is available on line from anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1-800-727-1928. This does not offer texts for worship but rather texts in contemporary English as a door into the appreciation of the classic texts.
I stand ready to do all I can to make this goal into a reality.
May I say in closing that I am not speaking for the Prayer Book Societies of Canada and the USA, even though I am intimately involved with them and their cause (of keeping in print and use with understanding the classic BCP).
I look for the other participants in the renewal and reform movement to support this proposal initially. I am optimistic that they will. Where there is a will there is a way. The LORD will provide if this be his will.
Please join me in meditation and prayer to discern the will of God in this regard.
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon petertoon@msn.com Sept 11, 2005
Friday, September 09, 2005
Loyalty --- is it a good thing for ECUSA clergy & laity?
A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection.
Feelings of allegiance.
The act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a
course of action.
Loyalty is a key concept in politics and in sport, and it is becoming so in the ECUSA. Bishops are calling for loyalty to the institution, as thousands think of leaving or calling for alternative Episcopal oversight. Is loyalty a virtue? Is it a good thing? How should the faithful respond to such calls.
A long time ago in a BBC broadcast the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell said: “Loyalty is always evil.” It was an exaggeration of course, but it made an important, even profound, point provocatively and clearly.
If any action, attachment or allegiance is defended on the ground of loyalty alone, then loyalty here may be said to be evil. Further, such a defense has no rational basis to it. To say, “I do this out of loyalty to my party [my leader, my denomination]” is both irrational and immoral unless it can be said that my party [or my leader or my denomination] is acting for the true good of mankind and the glory of God.
Loyalty in and of itself is never a moral basis for action. But where the cause or the leader of the institution is good, or seeking genuinely to be good, then loyalty may be said to be virtuous. But this is because of the good involved, not because of the power of the allegiance or attachment that is the loyalty.
Thus ECUSA priests and laity are not required to be loyal to the ECUSA if this Church is, in the judgment of the wise, disobeying the Lord of the Church. Unless ECUSA is doing what is good or at least intending and trying to do what is right and good, loyalty to this institution is mis-placed. Loyalty has to be to the Gospel, to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to God the Father, and if the ECUSA is seeking to put These first and uppermost in its corporate life and decisions then loyalty to the ECUSA can be virtuous.
Priests are being loyal to their ordinations when they recall their ordinations seriously, reverently and humbly and then seek to live and minister in the light and unction of them. This may mean rejecting or disobeying the institution to which they currently belong and into which they moved when ordained – especially if that institution denies the very Faith which was the context of the ordination itself. It may mean seeking alternative episcopal oversight or it may mean leaving the institution for another wherein the pursuit of the Good is real.
Loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the Gospel of the Father concerning him, are virtuous for here loyalty is truly to the GOOD.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Peter Toon’s AVAILABILITY
Friends,
For the last three months I have been assisting St Thomas’ Church, Houston as an interim rector. They are well on their way to selecting a new rector and they have in place the former associate rector, Doug Cadwallader, as the pastor until the arrival of a new rector. My services are no longer needed there as they know where they are going and are moving quickly.
Now I am back in Washington State, on the outskirts of Seattle by the mountains, and back at work on various writing tasks. I have been invited to assist at the famous St Luke’s Church in downtown Seattle as needed. But this means I am now free to accept invitations to speak or help out at other churches of an Episcopal or Anglican polity, either at weekends or mid-week around the USA or over the border in Canada.
I am ready and will be honored to preach on the Gospel or the theme of the day on Sundays and Holy Days, to lecture on themes from the BCP and Reformed Catholic traditions anytime, to represent the Prayer Book Society and explain its mission anytime, and generally be of service to the churches which want to be faithful to the Anglican Way.
My e mail addresses are petertoon@msn.com & thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
Please do no hesitate to call me if you think I can help you with your work and cause.
I am keen to put together a book for the PBS on the theme HOW CONSERVATIVE LITURGICAL CHURCHES GROW (and do no divide when they grow!). I am looking for good stories and sound principles so that the PBS can share this information with others to encourage them.
Thanks.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Peter Toon
For the last three months I have been assisting St Thomas’ Church, Houston as an interim rector. They are well on their way to selecting a new rector and they have in place the former associate rector, Doug Cadwallader, as the pastor until the arrival of a new rector. My services are no longer needed there as they know where they are going and are moving quickly.
Now I am back in Washington State, on the outskirts of Seattle by the mountains, and back at work on various writing tasks. I have been invited to assist at the famous St Luke’s Church in downtown Seattle as needed. But this means I am now free to accept invitations to speak or help out at other churches of an Episcopal or Anglican polity, either at weekends or mid-week around the USA or over the border in Canada.
I am ready and will be honored to preach on the Gospel or the theme of the day on Sundays and Holy Days, to lecture on themes from the BCP and Reformed Catholic traditions anytime, to represent the Prayer Book Society and explain its mission anytime, and generally be of service to the churches which want to be faithful to the Anglican Way.
My e mail addresses are petertoon@msn.com & thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
Please do no hesitate to call me if you think I can help you with your work and cause.
I am keen to put together a book for the PBS on the theme HOW CONSERVATIVE LITURGICAL CHURCHES GROW (and do no divide when they grow!). I am looking for good stories and sound principles so that the PBS can share this information with others to encourage them.
Thanks.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Peter Toon
Politicization of the Gospel – is it only the progressives who do it!
A discussion starter and by no means the last word….
For a long time the main-line and old-line Churches have been familiar with a message that amounts to a reduction of the supernatural kingdom of God/heaven to an idealized, this-worldly utopia, reached through effective social, political and economic action. This kind of teaching comes in a variety of forms and seems always to lose the priority of the transcendent sovereign rule of God in order to gain an immanent sense of progress towards peace, justice and equality on earth. In this scheme, people are being saved for and into an earthly paradise rather than being brought graciously through an evil age and world into a supernatural and heavenly kingdom.
In this progressive, liberal message, there is no ultimate heaven or hell beyond and above this world, but there is a kind of heaven and hell on earth. Heaven on earth is realized when full human rights are in operation, when there is true equality of persons and genuine peace amongst peoples, and when there is justice for everyone and when poverty and squalor have been removed from the earth. Hell is the absence of peace and justice and the triumph of evil and misery.
Hints of this kind of theology are found in the “baptismal covenant” and in the “catechism” of the 1979 prayer book of the ECUSA, as well as in many World Council of Churches publications. Where such theology is found and dominates, then the Gospel of the Father concerning his Only Son and the salvation of human beings from their sin into the righteousness of God, is neglected, eclipsed or denied. Further, the Sacraments change their meaning and purpose (e.g., the Eucharist becomes a community meal open to all who aspire to justice and peace) and preaching becomes advocacy for a this-wordly cause. The obsession of the ECUSA in the last thirty years with a progressive message of justice, peace, equality and human rights provides a near perfect example of an intensely religious but secular form of commitment to a this-worldly salvation. The rights of homosexual persons in the church and society are but the latest of a long line of concerns for such justice in this church.
Not only the progressives but also the orthodox….
At the same time, some (but not all) of “the orthodox” in the Churches need to be aware that they too can and do often politicize the Gospel of the Father concerning his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. To state it symbolically, they place the US Flag in front of the Cross, or they insist on singing the National Anthem in close proximity to the Prayer for the Church [militant here on earth] in the Eucharist. In plain terms, and as examples, they think of Christ as if he were an American, they tend to understand the biblical concept and language of freedom (in Christ by the Holy Spirit) in terms of the freedom associated with the “liberty” of the American constitution and the American dream, and they are prone to identify Israeli policies in the Near East as just, right and biblical and those of the Palestinians as at best unacceptable.
They seem unable to separate the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ from their values of patriotism, nationalism, ethnicity, culture, class and even race. They cannot understand how a Christian can vote for a party other than the Republican, and they often support conservative forms of liturgy and piety, as well as doctrine and morals, because they see these as expressing or lending support to their social conservatism. Further, they seem unable to comprehend the possibility that the true Church of God, the Body of Christ, is to be in this world and for this world but yet not of this world (where “the world” includes the ethos, norms and culture of the USA!).
The Gospel
The offer of the Gospel and the gift of God therein is made to all peoples and all classes and races, and thus in Christ there are no divisions, for in Baptism and by regeneration all are equal before God the Father. The Gospel does not favor one political party over another or one culture above another. All parties and cultures are under the judgment of God and there are different degrees of “human good” in them but none of them is anywhere near an expression of the Gospel or the Kingdom of God. This age, with all its enlightenment and achievements is an evil age and this world is under the constant judgment of the Lord. Of course, Christians have to make judgments as to how they shall live whether it be in a democracy or in a dictatorship. Yet never are they to identify any human order with the kingdom or with the demands of the Gospel, for both the kingdom and the Gospel belong to that which is above and not of this world. This means that though they prefer this party to that and this program to that and this social policy to that, they are preferring that which is imperfect to that which is more so, since nowhere in this world is there perfection in God’s reckoning.
The Ten Commandments is not social conservatism for they begin with a strong word of Redemption; the Sermon on the Mount is not social conservatism for the Lord calls for radical behavior to obey his word; and the ethics of the apostle Paul call for major changes in the relation of social classes in the fellowship of the churches.
The Gospel is all about the new creation, the order of the kingdom of heaven/God, and what it promises is both above and future, even though aspects of what shall be are felt and known now by the elect – already but not yet! Thus the Gospel must not be closely identified with any social or cultural or economic program of the right or the left, even though the Church is called to show mercy and be the salt and light of the world. The Church is to be in the world and for the world (in mission, evangelization and social service) but not of the world (in identifying closely with political parties, cultures, norms, values etc.).
Certainly our political and social views should be informed by the Gospel and the teaching of the Kingdom of God. Informed by but not equated with, and always under the judgment of God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
For a long time the main-line and old-line Churches have been familiar with a message that amounts to a reduction of the supernatural kingdom of God/heaven to an idealized, this-worldly utopia, reached through effective social, political and economic action. This kind of teaching comes in a variety of forms and seems always to lose the priority of the transcendent sovereign rule of God in order to gain an immanent sense of progress towards peace, justice and equality on earth. In this scheme, people are being saved for and into an earthly paradise rather than being brought graciously through an evil age and world into a supernatural and heavenly kingdom.
In this progressive, liberal message, there is no ultimate heaven or hell beyond and above this world, but there is a kind of heaven and hell on earth. Heaven on earth is realized when full human rights are in operation, when there is true equality of persons and genuine peace amongst peoples, and when there is justice for everyone and when poverty and squalor have been removed from the earth. Hell is the absence of peace and justice and the triumph of evil and misery.
Hints of this kind of theology are found in the “baptismal covenant” and in the “catechism” of the 1979 prayer book of the ECUSA, as well as in many World Council of Churches publications. Where such theology is found and dominates, then the Gospel of the Father concerning his Only Son and the salvation of human beings from their sin into the righteousness of God, is neglected, eclipsed or denied. Further, the Sacraments change their meaning and purpose (e.g., the Eucharist becomes a community meal open to all who aspire to justice and peace) and preaching becomes advocacy for a this-wordly cause. The obsession of the ECUSA in the last thirty years with a progressive message of justice, peace, equality and human rights provides a near perfect example of an intensely religious but secular form of commitment to a this-worldly salvation. The rights of homosexual persons in the church and society are but the latest of a long line of concerns for such justice in this church.
Not only the progressives but also the orthodox….
At the same time, some (but not all) of “the orthodox” in the Churches need to be aware that they too can and do often politicize the Gospel of the Father concerning his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. To state it symbolically, they place the US Flag in front of the Cross, or they insist on singing the National Anthem in close proximity to the Prayer for the Church [militant here on earth] in the Eucharist. In plain terms, and as examples, they think of Christ as if he were an American, they tend to understand the biblical concept and language of freedom (in Christ by the Holy Spirit) in terms of the freedom associated with the “liberty” of the American constitution and the American dream, and they are prone to identify Israeli policies in the Near East as just, right and biblical and those of the Palestinians as at best unacceptable.
They seem unable to separate the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ from their values of patriotism, nationalism, ethnicity, culture, class and even race. They cannot understand how a Christian can vote for a party other than the Republican, and they often support conservative forms of liturgy and piety, as well as doctrine and morals, because they see these as expressing or lending support to their social conservatism. Further, they seem unable to comprehend the possibility that the true Church of God, the Body of Christ, is to be in this world and for this world but yet not of this world (where “the world” includes the ethos, norms and culture of the USA!).
The Gospel
The offer of the Gospel and the gift of God therein is made to all peoples and all classes and races, and thus in Christ there are no divisions, for in Baptism and by regeneration all are equal before God the Father. The Gospel does not favor one political party over another or one culture above another. All parties and cultures are under the judgment of God and there are different degrees of “human good” in them but none of them is anywhere near an expression of the Gospel or the Kingdom of God. This age, with all its enlightenment and achievements is an evil age and this world is under the constant judgment of the Lord. Of course, Christians have to make judgments as to how they shall live whether it be in a democracy or in a dictatorship. Yet never are they to identify any human order with the kingdom or with the demands of the Gospel, for both the kingdom and the Gospel belong to that which is above and not of this world. This means that though they prefer this party to that and this program to that and this social policy to that, they are preferring that which is imperfect to that which is more so, since nowhere in this world is there perfection in God’s reckoning.
The Ten Commandments is not social conservatism for they begin with a strong word of Redemption; the Sermon on the Mount is not social conservatism for the Lord calls for radical behavior to obey his word; and the ethics of the apostle Paul call for major changes in the relation of social classes in the fellowship of the churches.
The Gospel is all about the new creation, the order of the kingdom of heaven/God, and what it promises is both above and future, even though aspects of what shall be are felt and known now by the elect – already but not yet! Thus the Gospel must not be closely identified with any social or cultural or economic program of the right or the left, even though the Church is called to show mercy and be the salt and light of the world. The Church is to be in the world and for the world (in mission, evangelization and social service) but not of the world (in identifying closely with political parties, cultures, norms, values etc.).
Certainly our political and social views should be informed by the Gospel and the teaching of the Kingdom of God. Informed by but not equated with, and always under the judgment of God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Church or World: or Both? For whom do we pray in the Eucharist/Mass/Order for Holy Communion?
Those who use a traditional edition of The Book of Common Prayer are familiar with the exhortation of the Minister, “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church [militant here on earth].” In both the English 1662 and the American 1928 editions, this Prayer comes after the Offertory and before the Confession of sins, and thus before the Prayer of Consecration of the Bread and Wine, but very hear to it.
However, in the first edition of The Book of Common Prayer of 1549, the content of the Prayer, following the example of the structure of the medieval Mass (the Sarum Rite), is set between the Sanctus [“Holy, holy, holy”] and the commemoration of the Institution of the Eucharist. So the prayer for the Church, as militant here on earth, expectant in the intermediate state and triumphant by grace in heaven, is actually enclosed within the Prayer of Consecration -- as it is also in the Scottish Communion Service of 1764 (which follows the structure within the old Eastern tradition).
The reason why the Prayer is for the Church and is either within or closely related to the Eucharistic/Consecration Prayer is that the Eucharist is not a public service of worship open to all comers. Rather it is for the baptized faithful, those who are in good standing in the church, and it is a being united to the Sacrifice of Christ, who is in glory in heaven, and also united to the Church expectant and triumphant. In early times, catechumens and those under discipline, were dismissed at the end of the Ministry of the Word (cf., the service of Ante-Communion in Anglican tradition) for they were not able to be worthy participants. Thus the Prayer is that offered for the Church by her Saviour and High Priest (see John 17) through and in His Body, and it is a Prayer not for the world but for His elect.
Regrettably in modern times, and in too many places, the Eucharist has been reduced to something like a spiritual fast food experience, and so both the glory and the orientation of this Heavenly Banquet are being or have been lost. Further, in modern Liturgies in the Anglican Communion (see e.g., the latest American, Canadian and English ones) the prayer is no longer in union with Christ the High Priest for his people, but it is begun with these words, “Let us pray for the Church and the World.” Also it is not any longer seen as the Prayer offered by the Priest, and he alone, but rather by one or more laity, since (in the modern understanding) it is not integrated into the Consecration Prayer and so is not a priestly action. And, it may be added that it is common now to invite all and sundry, “just as they are,” to the symbolical Meal.
Something very precious and very important for real devotion, piety and doctrine has been lost by the change in emphasis in modern Liturgies.
What about Prayer for the world? There is place and ample opportunity at the end of the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer; in personal Daily Prayers, in Church prayer meetings, and so on. There is a solemn duty for the Church (which is to be in the world and for the world but not of the world) to pray for the world and to pray fervently in the Name of Jesus. But the Eucharist is not the place for this form of praying.
The Eucharist is the uniting of the Church militant here on earth with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Church expectant and triumphant, and it is intensely focused upon the Lord Jesus and His Body, which is the Household of God. It is a heavenly service held here on earth!
This is why nationalism, and symbols thereof, are not appropriate in the Eucharist, even though some forms may be in services of Prayer and Thanksgiving.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
However, in the first edition of The Book of Common Prayer of 1549, the content of the Prayer, following the example of the structure of the medieval Mass (the Sarum Rite), is set between the Sanctus [“Holy, holy, holy”] and the commemoration of the Institution of the Eucharist. So the prayer for the Church, as militant here on earth, expectant in the intermediate state and triumphant by grace in heaven, is actually enclosed within the Prayer of Consecration -- as it is also in the Scottish Communion Service of 1764 (which follows the structure within the old Eastern tradition).
The reason why the Prayer is for the Church and is either within or closely related to the Eucharistic/Consecration Prayer is that the Eucharist is not a public service of worship open to all comers. Rather it is for the baptized faithful, those who are in good standing in the church, and it is a being united to the Sacrifice of Christ, who is in glory in heaven, and also united to the Church expectant and triumphant. In early times, catechumens and those under discipline, were dismissed at the end of the Ministry of the Word (cf., the service of Ante-Communion in Anglican tradition) for they were not able to be worthy participants. Thus the Prayer is that offered for the Church by her Saviour and High Priest (see John 17) through and in His Body, and it is a Prayer not for the world but for His elect.
Regrettably in modern times, and in too many places, the Eucharist has been reduced to something like a spiritual fast food experience, and so both the glory and the orientation of this Heavenly Banquet are being or have been lost. Further, in modern Liturgies in the Anglican Communion (see e.g., the latest American, Canadian and English ones) the prayer is no longer in union with Christ the High Priest for his people, but it is begun with these words, “Let us pray for the Church and the World.” Also it is not any longer seen as the Prayer offered by the Priest, and he alone, but rather by one or more laity, since (in the modern understanding) it is not integrated into the Consecration Prayer and so is not a priestly action. And, it may be added that it is common now to invite all and sundry, “just as they are,” to the symbolical Meal.
Something very precious and very important for real devotion, piety and doctrine has been lost by the change in emphasis in modern Liturgies.
What about Prayer for the world? There is place and ample opportunity at the end of the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer; in personal Daily Prayers, in Church prayer meetings, and so on. There is a solemn duty for the Church (which is to be in the world and for the world but not of the world) to pray for the world and to pray fervently in the Name of Jesus. But the Eucharist is not the place for this form of praying.
The Eucharist is the uniting of the Church militant here on earth with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Church expectant and triumphant, and it is intensely focused upon the Lord Jesus and His Body, which is the Household of God. It is a heavenly service held here on earth!
This is why nationalism, and symbols thereof, are not appropriate in the Eucharist, even though some forms may be in services of Prayer and Thanksgiving.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Saturday, August 06, 2005
How to know whether a Minister or layman is truly committed to the historic English, Christian Form of Prayer
Up to the late 1960s and often well into the 70s, the LORD our God was addressed by virtually everyone in public prayer in divine worship, in extempore prayer at mid-week services, in family prayers and privately as “Thou.”
From the late 1960s Bible translations (e.g., NIV) and Liturgies appeared which addressed God as “You” and (in that revolutionary cultural era) people began to think that we should all address God as we address one another, as “You.” To do so was to be relevant and open to evangelism and mission. So-called “experts” told us that in using “You” we were really doing what was done in earlier times, for then people addressed each other as “Thou.”
However, since the whole of the English heritage of prayer and devotion (from the Middle Ages to the 1960s) is and remains in the “Thou-Thee” form, it has not been easy to lose this form altogether, even when big efforts have been made to do so. Many hymns do not easily change into the “You” form of address and the Lord’s Prayer still seems only right when it prays, “hallowed be Thy Name.”
In the late 1970s the Liturgical Commission of the Episcopal Church USA wanted a Prayer Book that was wholly “You”; but conservatism in the Church required that they include a section of “Thou” [Rite 1] prayer. However, a little later, the Prayer Book of the West Indies (in part modeled on the USA book of 1979) used only “You.” New liturgies of the Episcopal Church since 1979 have all been in the “You” mode.
So what we have today is a majority of clergy which believes that God should be addressed as “You” (in order to be relevant and meaningful) and this is their habitual way of speaking to God when they pray. However, they are prepared to sing hymns and use bits of ancient devotion and liturgy or anthems which still (to them or their congregations) sound best or right in the “Thou” form.
There are a few Ministers and laity left who still use “Thou” out of conviction and understanding for the whole of the services which they conduct and share in; and there are some churches which use only the traditional language in hymnody and public prayer.
How does one tell whether or not a Minister is wholly committed to the use of the historic, classic, English form and way of prayer? The answer is simple: He will address God devoutly as “Thou” not only when using a public liturgy and hymn book and reading ser prayers, but he will also address God as “Thou” when he says grace, when he visits the sick, when he is called upon to lead in prayer, and when he says his own prayers in the solitude of his heart. And he will be prepared to give not only a linguistic and grammatical justification, but a theological one as well! (See the book named below for details.)
Any Minister, who uses the traditional form in public prayer, and who then changes to the modern form on other occasions, is not really committed at all to the historic form of English prayer! Rather, he may be said to be not against it, but only partially for it, since when he is free to choose, he chooses to address God as “You.” Regrettably this seems to apply to most evangelical Episcopal and Anglican clergy in 2005.
[For a readable and serious study of the English language of prayer, see Peter Toon and Louis Tarsitano, Neither Archaic not Obsolete, 2003, available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from (UK) www.edgewaysbooks.com or call 1-800-727-1928]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
From the late 1960s Bible translations (e.g., NIV) and Liturgies appeared which addressed God as “You” and (in that revolutionary cultural era) people began to think that we should all address God as we address one another, as “You.” To do so was to be relevant and open to evangelism and mission. So-called “experts” told us that in using “You” we were really doing what was done in earlier times, for then people addressed each other as “Thou.”
However, since the whole of the English heritage of prayer and devotion (from the Middle Ages to the 1960s) is and remains in the “Thou-Thee” form, it has not been easy to lose this form altogether, even when big efforts have been made to do so. Many hymns do not easily change into the “You” form of address and the Lord’s Prayer still seems only right when it prays, “hallowed be Thy Name.”
In the late 1970s the Liturgical Commission of the Episcopal Church USA wanted a Prayer Book that was wholly “You”; but conservatism in the Church required that they include a section of “Thou” [Rite 1] prayer. However, a little later, the Prayer Book of the West Indies (in part modeled on the USA book of 1979) used only “You.” New liturgies of the Episcopal Church since 1979 have all been in the “You” mode.
So what we have today is a majority of clergy which believes that God should be addressed as “You” (in order to be relevant and meaningful) and this is their habitual way of speaking to God when they pray. However, they are prepared to sing hymns and use bits of ancient devotion and liturgy or anthems which still (to them or their congregations) sound best or right in the “Thou” form.
There are a few Ministers and laity left who still use “Thou” out of conviction and understanding for the whole of the services which they conduct and share in; and there are some churches which use only the traditional language in hymnody and public prayer.
How does one tell whether or not a Minister is wholly committed to the use of the historic, classic, English form and way of prayer? The answer is simple: He will address God devoutly as “Thou” not only when using a public liturgy and hymn book and reading ser prayers, but he will also address God as “Thou” when he says grace, when he visits the sick, when he is called upon to lead in prayer, and when he says his own prayers in the solitude of his heart. And he will be prepared to give not only a linguistic and grammatical justification, but a theological one as well! (See the book named below for details.)
Any Minister, who uses the traditional form in public prayer, and who then changes to the modern form on other occasions, is not really committed at all to the historic form of English prayer! Rather, he may be said to be not against it, but only partially for it, since when he is free to choose, he chooses to address God as “You.” Regrettably this seems to apply to most evangelical Episcopal and Anglican clergy in 2005.
[For a readable and serious study of the English language of prayer, see Peter Toon and Louis Tarsitano, Neither Archaic not Obsolete, 2003, available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from (UK) www.edgewaysbooks.com or call 1-800-727-1928]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Fire in the soul during Meditating, Musing & Praying.
A favorite text used the centuries ago to describe the experience of prayerful meditation before the Lord and his Word was:
“My heart was hot within me, and while I was thus musing the fire kindled: and at the last I spake with my tongue, ‘LORD let me know mine end…’” [Psalm 39:3, from The Book of Common Prayer, 1662, cf. the KJV]
This translation has a distinct relation to the Vulgate [Latin] version of the Psalm used in medieval and early modern Europe in thousands of monasteries, convents and churches.
Why did this particular text seem to describe the felt experience of those who (in what was called the lectio divina) spent time in quiet before the Lord to ponder and pray over what they had heard and read in the lectio continua [the continuous reading of the Bible and chanting of the Psalter] of the daily offices?
The answer to the question requires that we enter the internal description of what those seriously committed to daily meditation believed they were doing.
First of all, they placed themselves in the presence of God, confessed their sins and asked for grace and inspiration. Then from memory (perhaps assisted by a text) they recalled some particular Word of the Lord heard and read earlier. Using their powers of imagination, they pictured the original scene from which the Word came. At the same time with their reason and intellect they sought to understand it by approaching it from various angles and with differing questions. Then they sought by the truths of the Word of God to raise their affections – their desire, hope, love, and joy – towards God the Father through Jesus Christ. Here they often experienced the inner warmth, glow, of the witness of the Holy Spirit with their spirit. That is, the fire kindled as they mused and raised their souls towards God. And with the fire kindled and the heart warmed their will was directed aright and they were prepared to make resolutions and commitments to the Lord and engage in genuine prayer.
The underlying belief was this: the whole soul has been affected by the disease of sin and this is seen most clearly in the affections and the will, together with the imagination. Thus in meditation, the whole soul (memory, intellect, imagination, affections and will) is to be engaged; further, the raising of the affections has to proceed (for there to be the real possibility of engagement with God and his truth) from consideration of, and pondering over, the Word and Truth of God. To begin with the affections is, for most people, not wise for they can be as wild horses and not controllable! They need to informed and warmed by the Word of the Lord before directed to embrace the Lord.
“While I was thus musing [considering, reflecting and thinking about God’s revealed Word] the fire kindled” and I was alive before God, ready to converse with him!
[There is a major chapter on praying the psalms in the forthcoming, Worship without Dumbing-down. Knowing God through Liturgy, by Peter Toon. This is available from August 15, 2005 for $12.50 post paid from The Prayer Book Society, Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA.19128-0220; phone 1 800 727 1928; and from its website, www.anglicanmarketplace.com ]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
“My heart was hot within me, and while I was thus musing the fire kindled: and at the last I spake with my tongue, ‘LORD let me know mine end…’” [Psalm 39:3, from The Book of Common Prayer, 1662, cf. the KJV]
This translation has a distinct relation to the Vulgate [Latin] version of the Psalm used in medieval and early modern Europe in thousands of monasteries, convents and churches.
Why did this particular text seem to describe the felt experience of those who (in what was called the lectio divina) spent time in quiet before the Lord to ponder and pray over what they had heard and read in the lectio continua [the continuous reading of the Bible and chanting of the Psalter] of the daily offices?
The answer to the question requires that we enter the internal description of what those seriously committed to daily meditation believed they were doing.
First of all, they placed themselves in the presence of God, confessed their sins and asked for grace and inspiration. Then from memory (perhaps assisted by a text) they recalled some particular Word of the Lord heard and read earlier. Using their powers of imagination, they pictured the original scene from which the Word came. At the same time with their reason and intellect they sought to understand it by approaching it from various angles and with differing questions. Then they sought by the truths of the Word of God to raise their affections – their desire, hope, love, and joy – towards God the Father through Jesus Christ. Here they often experienced the inner warmth, glow, of the witness of the Holy Spirit with their spirit. That is, the fire kindled as they mused and raised their souls towards God. And with the fire kindled and the heart warmed their will was directed aright and they were prepared to make resolutions and commitments to the Lord and engage in genuine prayer.
The underlying belief was this: the whole soul has been affected by the disease of sin and this is seen most clearly in the affections and the will, together with the imagination. Thus in meditation, the whole soul (memory, intellect, imagination, affections and will) is to be engaged; further, the raising of the affections has to proceed (for there to be the real possibility of engagement with God and his truth) from consideration of, and pondering over, the Word and Truth of God. To begin with the affections is, for most people, not wise for they can be as wild horses and not controllable! They need to informed and warmed by the Word of the Lord before directed to embrace the Lord.
“While I was thus musing [considering, reflecting and thinking about God’s revealed Word] the fire kindled” and I was alive before God, ready to converse with him!
[There is a major chapter on praying the psalms in the forthcoming, Worship without Dumbing-down. Knowing God through Liturgy, by Peter Toon. This is available from August 15, 2005 for $12.50 post paid from The Prayer Book Society, Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA.19128-0220; phone 1 800 727 1928; and from its website, www.anglicanmarketplace.com ]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)