If you need a Collect for Sunday worship or in the intercessions in the daily office, you may care to use this:
"O Gracious Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church and in particular for that jurisdiction of the same known as the Anglican Communion; that thou wouldest be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it. When its Primates meet on October 15-16 in London bless, direct and unite them in thy love, for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord. Amen."
(adapted from a prayer of Archbishop Laud)
The original Prayer from the Works of Laud I used as the dedication of my new, Sept 2003, book COMMON WORSHIP CONSIDERED (www.edgewaysbooks.com)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Saturday, September 13, 2003
ECUSA, Evangelicals & Charismatics, Holy Scripture & Consonance
In late 2003 a minority within the ECUSA is regretting that this Church's teaching and practice are not consonant with Scripture, and they have in mind particularly the area of sexual ethics.
To be consonant with Scripture has always been the aim/claim of the Church in her desire to be orthodox. And, surprisingly, it has also been the claim of those who have in sincerity introduced innovations into the Anglican Way since World War II - e.g., marriage of divorcees in church, new styles of liturgy, new language of prayer, the ordination of women, the blessing of "gay" couples & so on.
How can there be this unanimous commitment to CONSONANCE with sacred Scripture but yielding very different results? The answer is relatively simple - it all depends on the premises underlying the claim of consonance (i.e. that which underlies that teaching & doctrine which is said to be in agreement or harmony with the intent and doctrinal content of the Bible).
Let us note that whether we make the traditional conservative claim that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible as God's Word written in their original autographs, or we make the modern claim that the books of the Bible witness in some way to the Word of God, we have still the task of interpreting the Bible to find the Word of God.
While the classic Anglican approach to interpretation of the Bible has allowed for the function of sanctified reason & careful exegesis, it has set this in the context of bringing to the Bible a Christian mindset that is formed through commitment to the major aspects of Tradition created in the Early Church (the Creeds, the Dogma of the first ecumenical councils, the way the Bible is used in Daily offices & Public Liturgy etc.) and at the Reformation (e.g., the principle of justification by faith & the Reformation Formularies). Further it has said that there is One Canon of Scripture wherein are Two Testaments and thus the unity of Scripture is very important as a principle in terms of interpreting both Testaments and using Scripture in Liturgy and preaching.
When this mindset reads Scripture and applies what it finds to the contemporary church it is very unlikely to desire to introduce any major innovations. Its sense is always to look up to the exalted Lord and in so doing also to look back to the foundational documents and their use in the past. Thus it seeks to find ways of making what is received from the past into living reality in the present and for the future. To introduce anything for which there are no strong hints and a sound basis in the past, would be seen as not being consonant with Scripture as received.
In contrast, if the approach to the Bible is dominated by what we may called "critical theory", if the search is always for what it meant to those who originally wrote it and received it, if all kinds of critical questions preface any claim of unity between the OT & NT, and if the doctrinal understanding of the Bible in Tradition is discounted or is sidelined as being too culturally conditioned to be taken seriously into account, then obviously what the Bible is said to teach and what is applicable to the present are very open questions. So it is possible to claim that the real, inner message of the Bible is this or that theme or position and on this new basis justify innovations in the Church's doctrine and practice (e.g., import into the church as innovations that which in secular society is regarded as good and right).
The big questions for Evangelical & Charismatic Episcopalians in this time of crisis in the ECUSA and in world Anglicanism are how they actually view the Scriptures, how they interpret them and how they apply the results of that study to the burning questions of the day. For they need to remember that it is much the same type of reading and interpreting of the Bible that has justified the innovation of same-sex blessing that also has justified and continues to support women's ordination and the blessing of serial monogamy by the church. And the use of Scripture in modern Lectionaries and Liturgy is very different from that usage in the older Lectionaries and Liturgies. So to use the latter is to imbibe the "modern" outlook even if without intending to do so.
In this complex situation which version of the Bible is regularly used tells one a lot about where a given person or group really is! If one uses a Bible which translates Psalm 1 as "Happy are they" or "Happy is the one", for example, then the unity of Scripture is basically lost for Jesus Christ, the new Adam, has been taken out of the Psalter! And if out of the Psalter then out of the basic prayer of the Church. In the unity of Scripture the Psalter is the Prayer of Christ in, with and through His Church and the prayer of the Church in with and through Him! Finally, the classic Christian doctrine of sexuality (which forbids all "gay" sex as all fornication & adultery) wholly depends upon the unity of the two Testaments
in One Canon.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
To be consonant with Scripture has always been the aim/claim of the Church in her desire to be orthodox. And, surprisingly, it has also been the claim of those who have in sincerity introduced innovations into the Anglican Way since World War II - e.g., marriage of divorcees in church, new styles of liturgy, new language of prayer, the ordination of women, the blessing of "gay" couples & so on.
How can there be this unanimous commitment to CONSONANCE with sacred Scripture but yielding very different results? The answer is relatively simple - it all depends on the premises underlying the claim of consonance (i.e. that which underlies that teaching & doctrine which is said to be in agreement or harmony with the intent and doctrinal content of the Bible).
Let us note that whether we make the traditional conservative claim that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible as God's Word written in their original autographs, or we make the modern claim that the books of the Bible witness in some way to the Word of God, we have still the task of interpreting the Bible to find the Word of God.
While the classic Anglican approach to interpretation of the Bible has allowed for the function of sanctified reason & careful exegesis, it has set this in the context of bringing to the Bible a Christian mindset that is formed through commitment to the major aspects of Tradition created in the Early Church (the Creeds, the Dogma of the first ecumenical councils, the way the Bible is used in Daily offices & Public Liturgy etc.) and at the Reformation (e.g., the principle of justification by faith & the Reformation Formularies). Further it has said that there is One Canon of Scripture wherein are Two Testaments and thus the unity of Scripture is very important as a principle in terms of interpreting both Testaments and using Scripture in Liturgy and preaching.
When this mindset reads Scripture and applies what it finds to the contemporary church it is very unlikely to desire to introduce any major innovations. Its sense is always to look up to the exalted Lord and in so doing also to look back to the foundational documents and their use in the past. Thus it seeks to find ways of making what is received from the past into living reality in the present and for the future. To introduce anything for which there are no strong hints and a sound basis in the past, would be seen as not being consonant with Scripture as received.
In contrast, if the approach to the Bible is dominated by what we may called "critical theory", if the search is always for what it meant to those who originally wrote it and received it, if all kinds of critical questions preface any claim of unity between the OT & NT, and if the doctrinal understanding of the Bible in Tradition is discounted or is sidelined as being too culturally conditioned to be taken seriously into account, then obviously what the Bible is said to teach and what is applicable to the present are very open questions. So it is possible to claim that the real, inner message of the Bible is this or that theme or position and on this new basis justify innovations in the Church's doctrine and practice (e.g., import into the church as innovations that which in secular society is regarded as good and right).
The big questions for Evangelical & Charismatic Episcopalians in this time of crisis in the ECUSA and in world Anglicanism are how they actually view the Scriptures, how they interpret them and how they apply the results of that study to the burning questions of the day. For they need to remember that it is much the same type of reading and interpreting of the Bible that has justified the innovation of same-sex blessing that also has justified and continues to support women's ordination and the blessing of serial monogamy by the church. And the use of Scripture in modern Lectionaries and Liturgy is very different from that usage in the older Lectionaries and Liturgies. So to use the latter is to imbibe the "modern" outlook even if without intending to do so.
In this complex situation which version of the Bible is regularly used tells one a lot about where a given person or group really is! If one uses a Bible which translates Psalm 1 as "Happy are they" or "Happy is the one", for example, then the unity of Scripture is basically lost for Jesus Christ, the new Adam, has been taken out of the Psalter! And if out of the Psalter then out of the basic prayer of the Church. In the unity of Scripture the Psalter is the Prayer of Christ in, with and through His Church and the prayer of the Church in with and through Him! Finally, the classic Christian doctrine of sexuality (which forbids all "gay" sex as all fornication & adultery) wholly depends upon the unity of the two Testaments
in One Canon.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Friday, September 12, 2003
The See of Canterbury & the ECUSA
The occupant of the See of Canterbury, the Primate of all England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the President of the Lambeth Conference (which he calls every ten years), the President of the Anglican Consultative Council (whose creation gained the approval of all the Provinces in 1968) and the President of the Primates' Meeting (created 1978).
Yet each of the Thirty-Eight Provinces is autonomous in that the Primate of all England, like any other of the 37 Primates in the Anglican Family, can only enter other provinces than his own by invitation. There are no rights of entry.
Thus the Archbishop of Canterbury only enters a diocese of the ECUSA by invitation.
Not all Primates are welcomed in all Provinces. Since the introduction of the ordination of women as presbyters and then as bishops, there has been an impaired communion between certain provinces and thus, for example, Primates who have ordained women have not been invited to provinces where this innovation is seen as wrong.
It is also the case that autonomous provinces and indeed individual dioceses can declare themselves in impaired or wholly broken communion with other provinces and/or dioceses because of the perceived error, heresy,& condoning of immorality in the other provinces or dioceses. This is happening in 2003 over the matter of sexual practices approved in the ECUSA and deemed immoral by other provinces/dioceses. As yet none has declared itself out of communion with the Province of all England.
Thus there is between the 38 provinces something short of a rightly ordered federation, let alone a genuine Communion of Churches. This situation of impairment and division may become more obvious and pronounced after the regional meeting of evangelical bishops in Kenya later in September 2003.
However, all the Provinces without exception look to the See of Canterbury as the focus of unity and see their bishops in communion with the Archbishop thereof. Thus the Anglican Communion of 38 provinces remains intact even if it merely now just a loose federation.
None of the Primates has refused to attend that special Primates' Meeting in London on October 15-16 (but perhaps illness may keep several away). There will be pressure there, especially from the African lobby, upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to act in a way which only he can uniquely act - that is to tell the ECUSA that he is not prepared to invite its bishops to the next Lambeth Conference of Bishops unless its General Convention in 2006 reverses its decisions on sexuality & other matters. If he so acts the ECUSA will be disciplined in a way that has never occurred before in the history of the Communion. It will be on notice to reform or to be dismissed.
We need to be clear that no majority vote in the Anglican Consultative Council and certainly no majority vote in the Primates Meeting can discipline or expel the ECUSA. It is simply and only the Primate of all England (Canterbury), advised by the Primate of England (York), and such others as he cares to consult, who determines the membership of the Anglican Communion.
We do not know the full mind of the present Archbishop of the See of Canterbury on these matters; but, we do know that he knows that he has tremendous responsibility which must be hard to bear. He has told us that he is also very concerned about the evangelical intention in Sydney to use Lay Celebrants for Holy Communion. So if he decides to give warning to the ECUSA he may also do the same to Sydney, and in both cases, many will judge, he would be justified in terms of the central doctrines and traditions of the Anglican Way and the departure of Sydney & ECUSA from them.
Let us pray daily for ROWAN that wisdom, charity, insight and strength will be given unto him abundantly from the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit so that he truly acts not only as the Primate of all England but as the President of the Primates of the Anglican Family of 38 Churches.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Yet each of the Thirty-Eight Provinces is autonomous in that the Primate of all England, like any other of the 37 Primates in the Anglican Family, can only enter other provinces than his own by invitation. There are no rights of entry.
Thus the Archbishop of Canterbury only enters a diocese of the ECUSA by invitation.
Not all Primates are welcomed in all Provinces. Since the introduction of the ordination of women as presbyters and then as bishops, there has been an impaired communion between certain provinces and thus, for example, Primates who have ordained women have not been invited to provinces where this innovation is seen as wrong.
It is also the case that autonomous provinces and indeed individual dioceses can declare themselves in impaired or wholly broken communion with other provinces and/or dioceses because of the perceived error, heresy,& condoning of immorality in the other provinces or dioceses. This is happening in 2003 over the matter of sexual practices approved in the ECUSA and deemed immoral by other provinces/dioceses. As yet none has declared itself out of communion with the Province of all England.
Thus there is between the 38 provinces something short of a rightly ordered federation, let alone a genuine Communion of Churches. This situation of impairment and division may become more obvious and pronounced after the regional meeting of evangelical bishops in Kenya later in September 2003.
However, all the Provinces without exception look to the See of Canterbury as the focus of unity and see their bishops in communion with the Archbishop thereof. Thus the Anglican Communion of 38 provinces remains intact even if it merely now just a loose federation.
None of the Primates has refused to attend that special Primates' Meeting in London on October 15-16 (but perhaps illness may keep several away). There will be pressure there, especially from the African lobby, upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to act in a way which only he can uniquely act - that is to tell the ECUSA that he is not prepared to invite its bishops to the next Lambeth Conference of Bishops unless its General Convention in 2006 reverses its decisions on sexuality & other matters. If he so acts the ECUSA will be disciplined in a way that has never occurred before in the history of the Communion. It will be on notice to reform or to be dismissed.
We need to be clear that no majority vote in the Anglican Consultative Council and certainly no majority vote in the Primates Meeting can discipline or expel the ECUSA. It is simply and only the Primate of all England (Canterbury), advised by the Primate of England (York), and such others as he cares to consult, who determines the membership of the Anglican Communion.
We do not know the full mind of the present Archbishop of the See of Canterbury on these matters; but, we do know that he knows that he has tremendous responsibility which must be hard to bear. He has told us that he is also very concerned about the evangelical intention in Sydney to use Lay Celebrants for Holy Communion. So if he decides to give warning to the ECUSA he may also do the same to Sydney, and in both cases, many will judge, he would be justified in terms of the central doctrines and traditions of the Anglican Way and the departure of Sydney & ECUSA from them.
Let us pray daily for ROWAN that wisdom, charity, insight and strength will be given unto him abundantly from the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit so that he truly acts not only as the Primate of all England but as the President of the Primates of the Anglican Family of 38 Churches.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Beware of "the bondage of the will"
What we often fail to take into account in our explaining of why people hold on to what they know to be wrong beliefs or bad habits is what used to be called "the bondage of the will". [Remember that Luther wrote a book with this title!]
We are all familiar with the inability of people to give up smoking or hard drugs or alcohol, even when they really want to do so. They seem permanently wedded to the drug and are its slaves even at the same time as they can tell you how bad it is for them and that they ought to give it up.
Likewise we are familiar with the apparent inability of people to give up bad habits that they know are wrong and their desperate desire to change - e.g., gambling, compulsive sex, excessive eating, gossiping, bat temper, over-use of credit cards and so on.
In some cases it is possible that the cause of the bondage to drugs & compulsions can be traced to chemical reactions in the blood and the brain and thus special medical help along with spiritual medicine are needed.
However, there are many cases - most cases - where the reason that we do not act according to our informed consciences, best reasoning and rational mind is what we have called "the bondage of the will". St Paul has something profound to say about this in Romans 7. St Augustine has described the condition in detail in his writings and in his autobiography. We can experience the inner voice saying, " I ought to be this or that" or "I ought to do this or that", and we can be persuaded that what should be achieved or done by us is wholly right, and still we can fail to go ahead. The commitment of the mind does not get into the will and into action. Indeed, we can feel paralyzed and unable to do what we know absolutely is right. There is a blockage in the will. Thus we do not have the peace that passes understanding in our souls.
When we are in such circumstances it is obvious that we need to give ourselves with fresh commitment to prayer asking for help from above and claiming the promises that those who call upon the Lord for help will be heard. It may be necessary also to talk to a godly friend to ask for help & prayer from him.
This bondage of the will is also often found in respectable people (Christian leaders for example) -- a kind of stubbornness & refusal to accept that we are wrong, or that we must go in a different direction, or that we have to adopt a different creed. When it is to our (worldly) advantage to stay with this or that way, this or that form, our wills can and do become exceedingly defensive to protect the ego and the advantage to self, and this is so even when we are convinced in our minds that we should actually change our way or form or behavior to obey the Lord.
And this moral and spiritual bondage where people are socially joined - in a ethnic neighborhood, or in a local church, or in a denomination -- can take on a corporate dimension so that there it is as if a group of people are glued together in a bondage of the will, not prepared to change even when they know in their minds and hearts that they ought to do so for the lasting good of their group and in love of their neighbor. In fact this protection of the status quo and the refusal to be led by enlightened conscience is a major expression of sinfulness in churches and Christian societies for it produces both sins of commission and sins of omission.
Further, this bondage can affect the best of us (that is, the most religious of us) as our Lord's descriptions of and words to the Pharisees & Scribes well illustrate. In their case there was a corporate bondage within their party/movement and there was an individual bondage in each soul and it was all totally abhorrent to the Lord Jesus.
Let us relate this to where we are in the ECUSA now.
What I fear will prevent any God-directed renewal and reformation within conservative Episcopalianism at this period of crisis in the Episcopal Church in the Fall of 2003 is "the bondage of the will", both in its personal and in its corporate aspects. Too many of us seemingly want to hold on to what we have believed to be fine in the last decade or more, even though now we hear the informed reason telling us that it was below par and not genuinely of the Anglican Way, and even though we feel the alert conscience saying loudly and clearly within, "I ought to change and embrace the right way, this is my clear duty."
We shall never escape some bondage of the will as long as we live in mortal bodies, but let us seek by the mercies of God to break as free as is possible from that bondage now, individually & corporately, so that we do experience that gift of the Holy Spirit which is freedom from the rule of original and actual sin.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
We are all familiar with the inability of people to give up smoking or hard drugs or alcohol, even when they really want to do so. They seem permanently wedded to the drug and are its slaves even at the same time as they can tell you how bad it is for them and that they ought to give it up.
Likewise we are familiar with the apparent inability of people to give up bad habits that they know are wrong and their desperate desire to change - e.g., gambling, compulsive sex, excessive eating, gossiping, bat temper, over-use of credit cards and so on.
In some cases it is possible that the cause of the bondage to drugs & compulsions can be traced to chemical reactions in the blood and the brain and thus special medical help along with spiritual medicine are needed.
However, there are many cases - most cases - where the reason that we do not act according to our informed consciences, best reasoning and rational mind is what we have called "the bondage of the will". St Paul has something profound to say about this in Romans 7. St Augustine has described the condition in detail in his writings and in his autobiography. We can experience the inner voice saying, " I ought to be this or that" or "I ought to do this or that", and we can be persuaded that what should be achieved or done by us is wholly right, and still we can fail to go ahead. The commitment of the mind does not get into the will and into action. Indeed, we can feel paralyzed and unable to do what we know absolutely is right. There is a blockage in the will. Thus we do not have the peace that passes understanding in our souls.
When we are in such circumstances it is obvious that we need to give ourselves with fresh commitment to prayer asking for help from above and claiming the promises that those who call upon the Lord for help will be heard. It may be necessary also to talk to a godly friend to ask for help & prayer from him.
This bondage of the will is also often found in respectable people (Christian leaders for example) -- a kind of stubbornness & refusal to accept that we are wrong, or that we must go in a different direction, or that we have to adopt a different creed. When it is to our (worldly) advantage to stay with this or that way, this or that form, our wills can and do become exceedingly defensive to protect the ego and the advantage to self, and this is so even when we are convinced in our minds that we should actually change our way or form or behavior to obey the Lord.
And this moral and spiritual bondage where people are socially joined - in a ethnic neighborhood, or in a local church, or in a denomination -- can take on a corporate dimension so that there it is as if a group of people are glued together in a bondage of the will, not prepared to change even when they know in their minds and hearts that they ought to do so for the lasting good of their group and in love of their neighbor. In fact this protection of the status quo and the refusal to be led by enlightened conscience is a major expression of sinfulness in churches and Christian societies for it produces both sins of commission and sins of omission.
Further, this bondage can affect the best of us (that is, the most religious of us) as our Lord's descriptions of and words to the Pharisees & Scribes well illustrate. In their case there was a corporate bondage within their party/movement and there was an individual bondage in each soul and it was all totally abhorrent to the Lord Jesus.
Let us relate this to where we are in the ECUSA now.
What I fear will prevent any God-directed renewal and reformation within conservative Episcopalianism at this period of crisis in the Episcopal Church in the Fall of 2003 is "the bondage of the will", both in its personal and in its corporate aspects. Too many of us seemingly want to hold on to what we have believed to be fine in the last decade or more, even though now we hear the informed reason telling us that it was below par and not genuinely of the Anglican Way, and even though we feel the alert conscience saying loudly and clearly within, "I ought to change and embrace the right way, this is my clear duty."
We shall never escape some bondage of the will as long as we live in mortal bodies, but let us seek by the mercies of God to break as free as is possible from that bondage now, individually & corporately, so that we do experience that gift of the Holy Spirit which is freedom from the rule of original and actual sin.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Mistaken Identity - the wrong mother
On BBC TV there is a popular soap opera called "Neighbours". Right now one of the main characters, a wife and mother in her 40s, has discovered that the persons whom she called Mum and Dad for 40 years are not her biological parents, and that her aunt (whom she has tolerated rather than admired) is her real mother and her father is long gone. She is having a very tough time accepting this reality and especially treating her biological mother (who loves her dearly and is nearby) with respect and affection. Though her family try to persuade her of what is right and good, she finds herself not easily accepting of her real mother (even though her adoptive mother is dead).
No story is fully adequate as an illustration of church doctrine and politics. But this story does, however imperfectly, serve as a kind of parable of what has happened to thousands of well-intentioned, committed & conservative Episcopalians, who are like the 40 year old woman in the story.
They were told that the book they used each Sunday for "Holy Eucharist" and on other occasions for Morning Prayer, Baptism and Weddings was "The Book of Common Prayer." Further, because of the Preface from the 1789 BCP contained in this book, it was generally assumed that this Prayer Book was the natural successor of that 1789 Prayer Book [the first truly USA edition of the English 1662 BCP], as also of the two further American editions of 1892 & 1928. Some were aware that The Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1928) was still available from Oxford University Press, but they were taught (as much by clergy attitude as by words) that it belonged to the past and was out of date and of no relevance to them. Copies of it in church cupboards gathered dust or were quietly destroyed.
The present crisis in the ECUSA over biblical authority and church tradition and teaching has caused the winds to blow as it were into conservative parishes from a totally new direction - from the past into the present. Episcopalians, who have been shocked by the Gene Robinson affair, are coming to see that they have been misled and misdirected by the General Convention not only over same-sex partnerships & blessings but also over even more important things - e.g. The Formularies of the Church. In short, they have been lied to as to the identity of their true Mother.
Conservative Episcopalians are beginning to see - but it is very hard for them to accept [and this is especially so of the bishops] - that they have been calling "mother" that which is not truly "mother" while the true "mother" [the real BCP - edition of 1928] has been there all the time treated as a kind of elderly aunt, who is expected to die, and thus visits to her have been forbidden.
It is going to be a painful process for conservative Episcopalians to recognize who is their true doctrinal/liturgical Mother and to embrace her, to restore to its place as the Chief Formulary that Mother [the BCP 1928] and to treat what they have regarded as mother as their aunt. In other words to treat as a book of alternative services and not a formulary at all the 1979 book, which for so long they have believed is their mother.
Extra Note:
For those who are ready to examine the 1928 BCP as the real Formulary but have difficulties over what they have been told is archaic and obsolete language, may I commend to your study, "Neither Archaic nor Obsolete. The Language of Common Prayer & Public Worship" by Tarsitano & Toon. (Call 1-800-PBS-1928 for a copy or go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com ) This will remove many of your prejudices.
For those who desire to read a serious & major critique of the new forms of alternative services from the point of view of the classic Formularies, see "Common Worship Considered" published Sept 2003 in the UK and described on www.edgewaysbooks.com where there are secure ordering facilities for dollar based credit cards.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No story is fully adequate as an illustration of church doctrine and politics. But this story does, however imperfectly, serve as a kind of parable of what has happened to thousands of well-intentioned, committed & conservative Episcopalians, who are like the 40 year old woman in the story.
They were told that the book they used each Sunday for "Holy Eucharist" and on other occasions for Morning Prayer, Baptism and Weddings was "The Book of Common Prayer." Further, because of the Preface from the 1789 BCP contained in this book, it was generally assumed that this Prayer Book was the natural successor of that 1789 Prayer Book [the first truly USA edition of the English 1662 BCP], as also of the two further American editions of 1892 & 1928. Some were aware that The Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1928) was still available from Oxford University Press, but they were taught (as much by clergy attitude as by words) that it belonged to the past and was out of date and of no relevance to them. Copies of it in church cupboards gathered dust or were quietly destroyed.
The present crisis in the ECUSA over biblical authority and church tradition and teaching has caused the winds to blow as it were into conservative parishes from a totally new direction - from the past into the present. Episcopalians, who have been shocked by the Gene Robinson affair, are coming to see that they have been misled and misdirected by the General Convention not only over same-sex partnerships & blessings but also over even more important things - e.g. The Formularies of the Church. In short, they have been lied to as to the identity of their true Mother.
Conservative Episcopalians are beginning to see - but it is very hard for them to accept [and this is especially so of the bishops] - that they have been calling "mother" that which is not truly "mother" while the true "mother" [the real BCP - edition of 1928] has been there all the time treated as a kind of elderly aunt, who is expected to die, and thus visits to her have been forbidden.
It is going to be a painful process for conservative Episcopalians to recognize who is their true doctrinal/liturgical Mother and to embrace her, to restore to its place as the Chief Formulary that Mother [the BCP 1928] and to treat what they have regarded as mother as their aunt. In other words to treat as a book of alternative services and not a formulary at all the 1979 book, which for so long they have believed is their mother.
Extra Note:
For those who are ready to examine the 1928 BCP as the real Formulary but have difficulties over what they have been told is archaic and obsolete language, may I commend to your study, "Neither Archaic nor Obsolete. The Language of Common Prayer & Public Worship" by Tarsitano & Toon. (Call 1-800-PBS-1928 for a copy or go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com ) This will remove many of your prejudices.
For those who desire to read a serious & major critique of the new forms of alternative services from the point of view of the classic Formularies, see "Common Worship Considered" published Sept 2003 in the UK and described on www.edgewaysbooks.com where there are secure ordering facilities for dollar based credit cards.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
AUTONOMY, AUTONOMY & MORE AUTONOMY
A Discussion Starter for earnest souls at this time of Crisis for the ECUSA
What I wish to argue here is that those conservatives within the ECUSA who hold that the 1979 Prayer Book is truly the 1979 American edition of that classic Anglican text known as THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (even as the editions of 1662, 1789, 1891 & 1928 were such) have conceded much more than they imagine. In holding this position (however common it be in evangelical and anglo-catholic circles) they have already in principle conceded the right of the ECUSA in its autonomy to authorize other uses and practices, even when they are contrary to the mind of the Anglican Communion of Churches and to the clear teaching of Scripture and tradition.
Let us begin by agreeing that it is because the Province (now one of 38) known as the Episcopal Church of the USA [ECUSA] is for all practical purposes (as are the other 37 Provinces) autonomous, and subject to no authority outside itself, that it was able, for example, in 1976 to authorize the ordination of women and in 2003 to approve "gay unions" as acceptable. In each case had the Province waited for full discussion and debate in the Communion of Churches and then only acted if and only if there were a consensus in the Communion, or even a majority of Provinces in favor, then neither action would have been taken at that time by the ECUSA.
Yet because the ECUSA was very conscious of being autonomous and proudly so, and because (following the revolutionary 1960s) to innovate in Church doctrine and practice in order to conform to the world was the thing to do, the ECUSA used its autonomy in a fully democratic and internally legal way to approve what were clearly and unmistakably major innovations.
Let us be clear. In 1976 & 1979 the General Convention had before it the choice of authorizing the new collection of services (most of which had been on trial use for some years) prepared by the Standing Liturgical Commission as either (a) being a total replacement for the inherited Book of Common Prayer (1789, 1891 & 1928 editions) or (b) as existing alongside the classic Book of Common Prayer (1928) and thus being called "The Alternative Service Book" [ASB] or "The Book of Alternative Services" [BAS] or something similar.
To choose the latter path would have been to innovate but to do so with the general moral permission of the Lambeth Conference which had given the go-ahead in 1968 to Provinces to prepare alternative forms of services to exist alongside the BCP, which in every Province was the Chief Formulary after the Bible and Creeds. In its published resolutions from 1958 & 1968 & 1978 the Lambeth Conference never envisaged that these Alternative Forms would become total replacements for The Book of Common Prayer. They were to exist alongside and under the doctrinal authority of the classic BCP (which fact is stated clearly on the title page of the Church of England ASB of 1980.)
The ECUSA used its autonomy not merely to innovate in the manner suggested by the Lambeth Conference (by preparing alternative services) but in a way totally contrary to the mind of that Conference. This Province decided to call its new Prayer Book by the hallowed title, THE Book of Common Prayer (1979), and presented it to the Church and the world as if it were really and truly the same classic & historic Book as those of 1928, 1892, 1789 & 1662, and in true succession to them. At the same time, it placed the authentic Prayer Book (1928 edition) in storage as merely a historical document and forbad its general use.
Of course, the leadership of ECUSA offered all kinds of justification for this treacherous act of piracy and most Episcopalians, liberalized by the impact of the revolutionary1960s and by the powerful divorce culture that had penetrated the churches, followed in the path of the liturgists, bishops and the General Convention. Those few who protested were silenced wherever possible. In contrast to the ECUSA, in other Provinces the new services that had been prepared locally were specifically called "alternative services" and authorized to be used alongside those of the classic Prayer Book (e.g. in England that of 1662).
What the ECUSA in fact did was to set aside the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way (classic BCP with the Ordinal & the Articles) and to put in their place a single one -- The book of services with catechism authorized in 1976/79 and falsely called THE BCP.
If we accept this state of affairs and do not protest against it (worse still if we make the 1979 Book part of our Platform of Faith - as does the AAC for example) then we have conceded to the ECUSA the right in its autonomy to act in such a way as to place itself outside the normal parameters of the Anglican Communion. We have no leg to stand on when it comes to other acts of autonomous legislation!
The Archbishop of Canterbury failed the ECUSA and the Communion by not removing the ECUSA bishops from membership of the Lambeth Conference in 1988, and not allowing them back until they had rectified their act of piracy. The present crisis over "gay unions" is really minimal in comparison with the crisis over the Formularies for the crisis over sexuality is in many ways merely the result of the autonomy not being dealt with earlier, especially after 1979.
Therefore, those conservatives within the ECUSA who call for discipline to be meted out to the ECUSA from the See of Canterbury in 2003 do not act consistently and in truth if at the same time they hold that the 1979 Prayer Book is truly THE Book of Common Prayer, rather than a pretender to that high and dignified name.
The safe position for conservatives is to accept that the Formularies of the true Episcopal Church of the USA are the 1928 BCP into which book are also bound the Ordinal and the Articles. Then the 1979 Prayer Book can assume its proper place if required, that of The Alternative Service Book of 1979, in use till a better collection can be produced.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
What I wish to argue here is that those conservatives within the ECUSA who hold that the 1979 Prayer Book is truly the 1979 American edition of that classic Anglican text known as THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (even as the editions of 1662, 1789, 1891 & 1928 were such) have conceded much more than they imagine. In holding this position (however common it be in evangelical and anglo-catholic circles) they have already in principle conceded the right of the ECUSA in its autonomy to authorize other uses and practices, even when they are contrary to the mind of the Anglican Communion of Churches and to the clear teaching of Scripture and tradition.
Let us begin by agreeing that it is because the Province (now one of 38) known as the Episcopal Church of the USA [ECUSA] is for all practical purposes (as are the other 37 Provinces) autonomous, and subject to no authority outside itself, that it was able, for example, in 1976 to authorize the ordination of women and in 2003 to approve "gay unions" as acceptable. In each case had the Province waited for full discussion and debate in the Communion of Churches and then only acted if and only if there were a consensus in the Communion, or even a majority of Provinces in favor, then neither action would have been taken at that time by the ECUSA.
Yet because the ECUSA was very conscious of being autonomous and proudly so, and because (following the revolutionary 1960s) to innovate in Church doctrine and practice in order to conform to the world was the thing to do, the ECUSA used its autonomy in a fully democratic and internally legal way to approve what were clearly and unmistakably major innovations.
Let us be clear. In 1976 & 1979 the General Convention had before it the choice of authorizing the new collection of services (most of which had been on trial use for some years) prepared by the Standing Liturgical Commission as either (a) being a total replacement for the inherited Book of Common Prayer (1789, 1891 & 1928 editions) or (b) as existing alongside the classic Book of Common Prayer (1928) and thus being called "The Alternative Service Book" [ASB] or "The Book of Alternative Services" [BAS] or something similar.
To choose the latter path would have been to innovate but to do so with the general moral permission of the Lambeth Conference which had given the go-ahead in 1968 to Provinces to prepare alternative forms of services to exist alongside the BCP, which in every Province was the Chief Formulary after the Bible and Creeds. In its published resolutions from 1958 & 1968 & 1978 the Lambeth Conference never envisaged that these Alternative Forms would become total replacements for The Book of Common Prayer. They were to exist alongside and under the doctrinal authority of the classic BCP (which fact is stated clearly on the title page of the Church of England ASB of 1980.)
The ECUSA used its autonomy not merely to innovate in the manner suggested by the Lambeth Conference (by preparing alternative services) but in a way totally contrary to the mind of that Conference. This Province decided to call its new Prayer Book by the hallowed title, THE Book of Common Prayer (1979), and presented it to the Church and the world as if it were really and truly the same classic & historic Book as those of 1928, 1892, 1789 & 1662, and in true succession to them. At the same time, it placed the authentic Prayer Book (1928 edition) in storage as merely a historical document and forbad its general use.
Of course, the leadership of ECUSA offered all kinds of justification for this treacherous act of piracy and most Episcopalians, liberalized by the impact of the revolutionary1960s and by the powerful divorce culture that had penetrated the churches, followed in the path of the liturgists, bishops and the General Convention. Those few who protested were silenced wherever possible. In contrast to the ECUSA, in other Provinces the new services that had been prepared locally were specifically called "alternative services" and authorized to be used alongside those of the classic Prayer Book (e.g. in England that of 1662).
What the ECUSA in fact did was to set aside the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way (classic BCP with the Ordinal & the Articles) and to put in their place a single one -- The book of services with catechism authorized in 1976/79 and falsely called THE BCP.
If we accept this state of affairs and do not protest against it (worse still if we make the 1979 Book part of our Platform of Faith - as does the AAC for example) then we have conceded to the ECUSA the right in its autonomy to act in such a way as to place itself outside the normal parameters of the Anglican Communion. We have no leg to stand on when it comes to other acts of autonomous legislation!
The Archbishop of Canterbury failed the ECUSA and the Communion by not removing the ECUSA bishops from membership of the Lambeth Conference in 1988, and not allowing them back until they had rectified their act of piracy. The present crisis over "gay unions" is really minimal in comparison with the crisis over the Formularies for the crisis over sexuality is in many ways merely the result of the autonomy not being dealt with earlier, especially after 1979.
Therefore, those conservatives within the ECUSA who call for discipline to be meted out to the ECUSA from the See of Canterbury in 2003 do not act consistently and in truth if at the same time they hold that the 1979 Prayer Book is truly THE Book of Common Prayer, rather than a pretender to that high and dignified name.
The safe position for conservatives is to accept that the Formularies of the true Episcopal Church of the USA are the 1928 BCP into which book are also bound the Ordinal and the Articles. Then the 1979 Prayer Book can assume its proper place if required, that of The Alternative Service Book of 1979, in use till a better collection can be produced.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Monday, September 08, 2003
The QUADRILATERAL
Quadrilateral means four-sided or having four parts. In Anglican history it is usually applied to a Statement first approved by the Protestant Episcopal Church at Chicago in 1886 and then approved by the Lambeth Conference in slightly amended form in 1888.
At this time in the late 19th century, in the history of the Church of England and her sister Provinces overseas, there was a general sense of security in the commitment to the Anglican Way and to its historic Formularies (The Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion & the Ordinal - Ordination Services). From this solid base, and in part because of the impact of the great missionary movement of the 19th Century, leadership of the Protestant Episcopal Church in particular was considering seriously the call of God the Father & our Lord Jesus Christ to unity of the various denominations or jurisdictions of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
In the four-sided Statement, known as the Quadrilateral, the American Church, followed later by the whole Anglican Communion of Churches, stated that "the four Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion." The four are the Scriptures, the two Creeds, the two Sacraments and the historic Episcopate.
We need to be perfectly clear that the Quadrilateral is not and was never set forth to be an internal confession of faith for Anglicans or Episcopalians. Such an internal confession already existed in the Formularies, based upon Holy Scripture.
Thus it is a serious mistake for modern groups to use the Quadrilateral as if it were a confession of faith for Anglican churches, societies or organizations. If the Anglican Faith is now reduced in 2003 to that which was in 1888 regarded as the minimum basis for negotiations with other Christian bodies towards the possibility of inter-communion and unity, then we have certainly much reduced what it is that we believe, teach and confess as Anglican Christians.
In particular, there is removed from the basis of the Anglican Way that which has been its unique possession, as both a Formulary and an authoritative basis for worship since the reforms of the 16th century, the authentic Book of Common Prayer.
A further thought -- What the use of the Quadrilateral in ecumenical relations preserves is the important principle that reform and renewal in the life and history of the Church of God is achieved by looking backwards (to the authentic sources of the Faith) even as we simultaneously look up to the exalted Lord Christ for reviving grace. When the Church seeks to bring in change through innovation (introducing that which has never been there before - e.g. women's ordination and gay marriage ) then she is pursuing reformation not by looking backwards (in order to go forward in faith , hope and charity) but by looking forwards in optimism with the hope that what is introduced will work out as fine. And to cover this new principle of reformation forwards the ecumenical world, followed by the Anglican, invented a modern form of the old doctrine of reception (if it is of God it will be received, and, if it is not, then it will eventually be seen to be inappropriate or wrong).
Where the Quadrilateral is rightly used in ecumenical relations there is not the possibility of innovations belonging to the principle of reformation forwards, but there is the real possibility of moves towards cooperation and fellowship between long divided denominations and churches on a sound, historic and biblical basis.
Let us use the Quadrilateral aright and experience its wisdom in practical, ecclesial contacts.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
At this time in the late 19th century, in the history of the Church of England and her sister Provinces overseas, there was a general sense of security in the commitment to the Anglican Way and to its historic Formularies (The Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion & the Ordinal - Ordination Services). From this solid base, and in part because of the impact of the great missionary movement of the 19th Century, leadership of the Protestant Episcopal Church in particular was considering seriously the call of God the Father & our Lord Jesus Christ to unity of the various denominations or jurisdictions of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
In the four-sided Statement, known as the Quadrilateral, the American Church, followed later by the whole Anglican Communion of Churches, stated that "the four Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion." The four are the Scriptures, the two Creeds, the two Sacraments and the historic Episcopate.
We need to be perfectly clear that the Quadrilateral is not and was never set forth to be an internal confession of faith for Anglicans or Episcopalians. Such an internal confession already existed in the Formularies, based upon Holy Scripture.
Thus it is a serious mistake for modern groups to use the Quadrilateral as if it were a confession of faith for Anglican churches, societies or organizations. If the Anglican Faith is now reduced in 2003 to that which was in 1888 regarded as the minimum basis for negotiations with other Christian bodies towards the possibility of inter-communion and unity, then we have certainly much reduced what it is that we believe, teach and confess as Anglican Christians.
In particular, there is removed from the basis of the Anglican Way that which has been its unique possession, as both a Formulary and an authoritative basis for worship since the reforms of the 16th century, the authentic Book of Common Prayer.
A further thought -- What the use of the Quadrilateral in ecumenical relations preserves is the important principle that reform and renewal in the life and history of the Church of God is achieved by looking backwards (to the authentic sources of the Faith) even as we simultaneously look up to the exalted Lord Christ for reviving grace. When the Church seeks to bring in change through innovation (introducing that which has never been there before - e.g. women's ordination and gay marriage ) then she is pursuing reformation not by looking backwards (in order to go forward in faith , hope and charity) but by looking forwards in optimism with the hope that what is introduced will work out as fine. And to cover this new principle of reformation forwards the ecumenical world, followed by the Anglican, invented a modern form of the old doctrine of reception (if it is of God it will be received, and, if it is not, then it will eventually be seen to be inappropriate or wrong).
Where the Quadrilateral is rightly used in ecumenical relations there is not the possibility of innovations belonging to the principle of reformation forwards, but there is the real possibility of moves towards cooperation and fellowship between long divided denominations and churches on a sound, historic and biblical basis.
Let us use the Quadrilateral aright and experience its wisdom in practical, ecclesial contacts.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Saturday, September 06, 2003
Is the Prayer Book Society (PBS) acting inconsistently in the Fall of 2003?
There is the strong possibility that the Prayer Book Society of the USA will be charged with inconsistency by friend and foe. This is because of what appears to be a changing stance that the Society and its writers are taking within the present crisis of the Episcopal Church of the USA. However, as we shall see, there is really no inconsistency merely the perception of it by those who do not look closely or deeply.
First of all, there is the charge: “You folks have been asking for the texts of the 1928 BCP to be permitted by bishops for use in parishes as alternative services to those from the 1979 Prayer Book. Now you are asking that the 1928 BCP become the chief formulary of the emerging new federation & era of American Episcopalianism. You are inconsistent and unclear of mind.”
The answer is simple. The present Province of ECUSA authorized the 1979 Prayer Book as its sole and only Prayer Book in 1976/79. This is its primary Formulary. The use of any other rites and services than those within the 1979 Prayer Book is only possible with the permission of the General Convention and/or the Ordinary (diocesan bishop). On two occasions the General Convention has passed resolutions allowing limited use of the rites and services of the 1928 BCP and a few bishops have put that provision into practice.
If there is going to be a new federation of dioceses that sees itself as separate from the “National Church” of the ECUSA, then it has the opportunity to begin on a proper and rightful foundation. The door is open for it to restore the historic Formularies (BCP 1928, Ordinal & Articles of Religion) to their accustomed place, that which they had in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA, and that which they have in the Church of England.
In the second place there is the charge: “For a long time you have been criticising the 1979 Prayer Book as being less than adequate in terms of doctrine, language and structure. Now you are proposing that it be accepted (as least temporarily) as The Book of Alternative Services for the emerging new federation & era of Episcopalianism. You are inconsistent and confused of mind.”
Again the answer is simple. If the 1979 Book were used under the authority of the classic Formularies, it would have to be interpreted in the light of the doctrine in them. Thus where the doctrine in the 1979 Book, when read and understood in and of itself, is or seems to be fuzzy or tending to error, it will admit of an orthodox reading if it is seen in the bright light of the reformed catholic doctrine in the Formularies.
For example, often in the 1979 Book there are these words: “Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Now without context these mean, because of the colon, “Blessed be the One God with Three Names.” And this is a form of Unitarianism and is not obviously Trinitarianism. But when read in the context of the Formularies the words come to mean, “Blessed be God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This is a clear orthodox statement because the natural force of the colon is discounted and the context of classic Trinitarianism provides the rule.
So, while the Prayer Book Society has been right, for the sake of Truth and the heritage of the Anglican Way, to show the inadequacies of the 1979 Book as the Formulary of ECUSA and to ask for permission to use the classic 1928 BCP, it is also right now to call for the reinstatement of the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way and to suggest allowing the 1979 Book under the authority of these foundational texts
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
First of all, there is the charge: “You folks have been asking for the texts of the 1928 BCP to be permitted by bishops for use in parishes as alternative services to those from the 1979 Prayer Book. Now you are asking that the 1928 BCP become the chief formulary of the emerging new federation & era of American Episcopalianism. You are inconsistent and unclear of mind.”
The answer is simple. The present Province of ECUSA authorized the 1979 Prayer Book as its sole and only Prayer Book in 1976/79. This is its primary Formulary. The use of any other rites and services than those within the 1979 Prayer Book is only possible with the permission of the General Convention and/or the Ordinary (diocesan bishop). On two occasions the General Convention has passed resolutions allowing limited use of the rites and services of the 1928 BCP and a few bishops have put that provision into practice.
If there is going to be a new federation of dioceses that sees itself as separate from the “National Church” of the ECUSA, then it has the opportunity to begin on a proper and rightful foundation. The door is open for it to restore the historic Formularies (BCP 1928, Ordinal & Articles of Religion) to their accustomed place, that which they had in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA, and that which they have in the Church of England.
In the second place there is the charge: “For a long time you have been criticising the 1979 Prayer Book as being less than adequate in terms of doctrine, language and structure. Now you are proposing that it be accepted (as least temporarily) as The Book of Alternative Services for the emerging new federation & era of Episcopalianism. You are inconsistent and confused of mind.”
Again the answer is simple. If the 1979 Book were used under the authority of the classic Formularies, it would have to be interpreted in the light of the doctrine in them. Thus where the doctrine in the 1979 Book, when read and understood in and of itself, is or seems to be fuzzy or tending to error, it will admit of an orthodox reading if it is seen in the bright light of the reformed catholic doctrine in the Formularies.
For example, often in the 1979 Book there are these words: “Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Now without context these mean, because of the colon, “Blessed be the One God with Three Names.” And this is a form of Unitarianism and is not obviously Trinitarianism. But when read in the context of the Formularies the words come to mean, “Blessed be God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This is a clear orthodox statement because the natural force of the colon is discounted and the context of classic Trinitarianism provides the rule.
So, while the Prayer Book Society has been right, for the sake of Truth and the heritage of the Anglican Way, to show the inadequacies of the 1979 Book as the Formulary of ECUSA and to ask for permission to use the classic 1928 BCP, it is also right now to call for the reinstatement of the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way and to suggest allowing the 1979 Book under the authority of these foundational texts
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Friday, September 05, 2003
The American Anglican Council & Anglican Formularies.
(As the search goes on for a God-directed and Christ-honoring response to the present crisis in the ECUSA, I offer this starter for discussion, knowing that there will be serious reflection and consideration before & at the various Diocesan Conventions, the Plano/Dallas Congress of the AAC and especially at the Primates Meeting in mid-October. I wish I could go to all these meetings and listen in!)
It is a cause of thankfulness to Almighty God that the American Anglican Council (AAC) is responding positively in the late summer and autumn of 2003 to the crisis over authority & sexuality within the Episcopal Church. Bishops, clergy & lay leaders in this organisation are standing up to be counted on behalf of what they believe the Episcopal Church ought to believe, teach and confess and how it ought to behave before God, the Judge of all men.
I want to suggest that the ability of the AAC to respond to this growing crisis is somewhat restricted because of the inadequacy of the doctrinal basis on which it stands. In terms of moral fervour and spiritual energy the AAC is exemplary. However it is not yet so in the area of doctrine because of its own self-chosen mission statement, which is inadequate to the task in hand.
In "A Place to Stand. A Call to Mission", which expresses the identity of the AAC there is this section:
"Historic Faith, Ecumenical Vision. We affirm the Faith of the Church as it is set forth in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and in the classical Prayer Book tradition, including those documents contained in the "Historical Documents" section of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (BCP p.863). We further affirm the principles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (BCP p.876) as an expression of the normative authority of Holy Scripture and as a basis for our present unity with brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion and for the future reunion of all the divided branches of Christ's one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
The content of this paragraph is encouraging; but, it could be much better. This paragraph points to the classic, biblical and orthodox Anglican Way; but, it could do so much more effectively & clearly.
First of all, it lumps together two different forms of Doctrinal Statement. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888) was meant only as a Statement of the relation of Anglican Provinces to other denominations. It is a rehearsal of the basics required & needed for union with other Churches. Nowhere does it claim to be an internal confession of faith for an Anglican Province. In contrast, the Creeds of the Church and the Formularies of the Anglican Way [the classic Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion and the Ordinal] are internal statements of what the Church actually believes, teaches and confesses and what is the basis of her worship of the Holy Trinity. The Quadrilateral is to be read against the background of the historic Formularies.
Secondly, this statement from the AAC actually treats the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church as a genuine edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer, in a line from the edition of 1662 through those of 1789, 1891 and 1928. Though the Episcopal Church did erroneously and mischievously call its Prayer Book of 1979 by the hallowed title of "The Book of Common Prayer," anyone examining it will see at once that the content does not fit such a title, but rather, fits another title (used in England and Canada), that of, "A Book of Alternative Services".
If the AAC, and the dioceses attached to it, were to adopt as their basis the classic Anglican Formularies (all happily contained within the covers of the 1928 edition of the classic BCP edition of 1928 published by Oxford University Press) as the internal standards of the Anglican/Episcopal Way, and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as the basis for ecumenical relations with other Churches, then the AAC could continue to use the 1979 Prayer Book as providing alternative services to be used alongside and under the doctrinal authority of the historic, classic Book of Common Prayer. Such a change would place the AAC in the historic line of biblical and classic Anglican orthodoxy and thus cause her to have the same doctrinal basis as most Provinces of the Anglican Family, chiefly that of the Church of England. She would have the Book of Common Prayer (with the Ordinal and the Articles) and in relation to it she would have another prayer book, containing alternative services. And thereby she would be authentically Anglican and poised, by God's mercy, to engage in mission effectively and profoundly.
In the interim, all her Bishops could declare loudly and clearly - as Bishop Ackerman has done -- that parishes which so desire may use now any or all of the services within the 1928 BCP. This would send out a clear message that the clsasic Anglican Way was being recovered as the basis for an ongoing mission.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
It is a cause of thankfulness to Almighty God that the American Anglican Council (AAC) is responding positively in the late summer and autumn of 2003 to the crisis over authority & sexuality within the Episcopal Church. Bishops, clergy & lay leaders in this organisation are standing up to be counted on behalf of what they believe the Episcopal Church ought to believe, teach and confess and how it ought to behave before God, the Judge of all men.
I want to suggest that the ability of the AAC to respond to this growing crisis is somewhat restricted because of the inadequacy of the doctrinal basis on which it stands. In terms of moral fervour and spiritual energy the AAC is exemplary. However it is not yet so in the area of doctrine because of its own self-chosen mission statement, which is inadequate to the task in hand.
In "A Place to Stand. A Call to Mission", which expresses the identity of the AAC there is this section:
"Historic Faith, Ecumenical Vision. We affirm the Faith of the Church as it is set forth in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and in the classical Prayer Book tradition, including those documents contained in the "Historical Documents" section of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (BCP p.863). We further affirm the principles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (BCP p.876) as an expression of the normative authority of Holy Scripture and as a basis for our present unity with brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion and for the future reunion of all the divided branches of Christ's one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
The content of this paragraph is encouraging; but, it could be much better. This paragraph points to the classic, biblical and orthodox Anglican Way; but, it could do so much more effectively & clearly.
First of all, it lumps together two different forms of Doctrinal Statement. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888) was meant only as a Statement of the relation of Anglican Provinces to other denominations. It is a rehearsal of the basics required & needed for union with other Churches. Nowhere does it claim to be an internal confession of faith for an Anglican Province. In contrast, the Creeds of the Church and the Formularies of the Anglican Way [the classic Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion and the Ordinal] are internal statements of what the Church actually believes, teaches and confesses and what is the basis of her worship of the Holy Trinity. The Quadrilateral is to be read against the background of the historic Formularies.
Secondly, this statement from the AAC actually treats the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church as a genuine edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer, in a line from the edition of 1662 through those of 1789, 1891 and 1928. Though the Episcopal Church did erroneously and mischievously call its Prayer Book of 1979 by the hallowed title of "The Book of Common Prayer," anyone examining it will see at once that the content does not fit such a title, but rather, fits another title (used in England and Canada), that of, "A Book of Alternative Services".
If the AAC, and the dioceses attached to it, were to adopt as their basis the classic Anglican Formularies (all happily contained within the covers of the 1928 edition of the classic BCP edition of 1928 published by Oxford University Press) as the internal standards of the Anglican/Episcopal Way, and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as the basis for ecumenical relations with other Churches, then the AAC could continue to use the 1979 Prayer Book as providing alternative services to be used alongside and under the doctrinal authority of the historic, classic Book of Common Prayer. Such a change would place the AAC in the historic line of biblical and classic Anglican orthodoxy and thus cause her to have the same doctrinal basis as most Provinces of the Anglican Family, chiefly that of the Church of England. She would have the Book of Common Prayer (with the Ordinal and the Articles) and in relation to it she would have another prayer book, containing alternative services. And thereby she would be authentically Anglican and poised, by God's mercy, to engage in mission effectively and profoundly.
In the interim, all her Bishops could declare loudly and clearly - as Bishop Ackerman has done -- that parishes which so desire may use now any or all of the services within the 1928 BCP. This would send out a clear message that the clsasic Anglican Way was being recovered as the basis for an ongoing mission.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Thursday, September 04, 2003
Expulsion from and entry into the Anglican Communion.
I respond to several questions put to me on this matter, by setting out what I believe to be the case. I am open to correction on all points.
Here is the Collect [rendered into the classic language of prayer by me] that was put out by the Director of the Office of the Anglican Communion:
"O God our heavenly Father, who hast called us, as members of the Body of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to continue his work of reconciliation and evangelisation amongst men: Forgive us the sins which tear us apart; and give us the courage to overcome our fears and to seek that unity which is thy gift and thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1. While it is true that the Bishop of any Diocese or the Bishops of any Province of the Anglican Communion [outside of the Church of England] can determine not to be in communion with a given Bishop or a group of Bishops or all the Bishops of a province, no province or group of provinces or meeting of representatives of provinces can decide the membership of the Anglican Communion of Churches.
2. The Anglican Communion of Churches is made up of those Provinces with whose Primate and Bishops the Archbishops of Canterbury & York, and primarily Canterbury, state they are in communion and recognize them as true bishops in apostolic orders and as holding to a common apostolic Faith. No other authority can say and do this.
3. From the perspective of the Mother Church of the Communion, the C of E, the nature of the Anglican Communion as an informal family or federation or grouping of autonomous provinces is set out in Halsbury 14, Ecclesiastical Law, at s.313. It refers to the Overseas and other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967, which sets out the procedures whereby a church is recognised as being in communion with the Church of England. See sections 3, 4 (1), and 6 (2).
In particular note s.6 (2):
"If any question arises whether, for the purposes of this Measure, a Church is in Communion with the Church of England or whether the Orders of any Church are recognised and accepted by the Church of England, it shall be determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, whose decision shall be conclusive."
4. Thus it is clear that no majority vote of Primates and no majority votein the Anglican Consultative Council and no majority vote in the LambethConference has any other force than advisory to the English Primates ofCanterbury & York. In this matter, it seems that the A of Cant is truly and really a Pope!
5. If the ECUSA is to be disciplined by temporary expulsion from the Anglican Family and its Primate not invited to the Primates' Meeting, its bishops not invited to the Lambeth Conference and its representatives not invited to the Anglican Consultative Council, then that decision has to be and can only be made by the two English Primates, that is by Canterbury as advised by and working with York. Votes here and there calling for such or advising against it have only the force of moral suasion and practical advice.
6. Thus we need to pray earnestly for the English Archbishops and for all the other 37 Primates who will gather on October 15/16 in London to take counsel together and to advise Dr Rowan Williams, with whom is the final word.
Here is the Collect [rendered into the classic language of prayer by me] that was put out by the Director of the Office of the Anglican Communion:
"O God our heavenly Father, who hast called us, as members of the Body of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to continue his work of reconciliation and evangelisation amongst men: Forgive us the sins which tear us apart; and give us the courage to overcome our fears and to seek that unity which is thy gift and thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)