An informative summary of the varieties of Anglicans in North America by William J. Tighe, Ph.D. (hat tip: James Altena):
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/10/anglican_taxono.html
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Generation Y's Feeble Faith: Australian Study Shows Lower Interest in Religion
By Father John Flynn
MELBOURNE, Australia, OCT. 15, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A study of the younger generation's spirituality in Australia revealed fairly low levels of religiosity and practice. "The Spirit of Generation Y: Young People, Spirituality and Society" was recently released under the authorship of a team of researchers, led by Redemptorist Father Michael Mason, of the Australian Catholic University.
From 2003 till early 2006 the researchers studied a national sample of young people in their teens and 20s. The methodology relied on surveys and face-to-face interviews.
Researchers found that 48% of Generation Y believe in a God, 20% do not, and 32% are unsure. Two-thirds of those who do not believe in God, or are uncertain, do believe in a "higher being or life-force."
Generation Y refers to the cohort born between 1976 and 1990. They followed Generation X (1961-1975) and the baby boomers (1946-1960). The youngest members of Generation Y were aged 13 when interviews began in 2003, and the oldest were aged 29 at the end of 2005.
"It is likely that this cohort is the first in the last 100 years in which the majority have no memory of frequent church attendance," commented the ample summary of the report. The full report will be published in book form next year.
In general the study found that the social forces influencing contemporary religion and spirituality -- secularization, the relativism of postmodernity, consumer capitalism, individualism -- have a greater impact on younger people.
The researchers concluded that members of Generation Y have taken strongly to two modern principles. They are: that an individual's views and preferences, provided they harm no one else, should not be questioned or constrained; and that spiritual or religious beliefs and practices are purely personal lifestyle choices -- in no way necessary.
In spite of moving away in large numbers from traditional religion they seem to have a strong sense of purpose in their lives, according to the study. There is no evidence of a widespread plague of meaninglessness or social alienation among Generation Y.
This positive finding is in spite of declining support from churches and the local community. As these factors have weakened, younger people have compensated by turning to family and friends.
A private affair
The study identified three main strands in the spirituality of Generation Y.
-- Christian, 44%. Overall, only 19% of Generation Y are actively involved in a church to the extent of attending religious services once a month or more. Conservative Protestant denominations -- 16% of Gen Y -- have by far the highest rates of attendance. Nevertheless, many more believe in God and Jesus, and pray regularly. In general, religion is seen as a private matter. And there is a strong tide of movement among Generation Y Christians away from involvement or identification with a church, and even from religious belief.
-- Eclectic, 17%. This consists in believing in two or more New Age, esoteric or Eastern beliefs (reincarnation, psychics and fortunetellers, ghosts, astrology, etc.) and perhaps engaging in one or more alternative spiritual practices (yoga, Tarot, tai chi). Some of these people attend religious services but most do not. Such beliefs and practices are more common among young women than among young men.
-- Humanist, 31%. This group rejects the idea of God, although a few believe in a "higher being." Almost half believe that there is very little truth in religion, and fewer than a quarter believe in life after death. They also largely reject alternative spiritualities.
The study also revealed that the level of social concern among Generation Y is not high. They tend to be more self-centered and lacking in altruism than older generations. This could be linked to the lower levels of religiosity. In fact, those who are actively involved in service to the community and have positive civic values are far more likely to come from the ranks of those who have spiritual and religious beliefs and actively practice them.
The Catholic Church provided the largest single group among the young people studied. Among them 18% identified themselves as Catholic. Another 8% declared themselves Anglicans, and 16% declared themselves as belonging to one of a variety of other Christian churches. Added up, plus some other minor groups, this gave a total of 48% declaring a religious identification, against 52% lacking any such identification.
The researchers were struck by the numbers without a formal religious identification; it was 17% to 18% higher than the level found in previous Australian census data. The latest national census was carried out in 2001.
Another notable finding was that there is no significant difference in the scores of Generation Y males and females. This confirms other recent research in Australia that young women are overall no more religious than young men. Given that mothers are known to have great influence in the religious socialization of children, "it is hard to overestimate the importance of this finding and its likely consequences," commented the report.
Catholic commitment
On nearly all measures of belief and practice Catholic members of Generation Y are positioned between the Anglican and the Other Christian groups. The scale runs from those least likely to affirm religious beliefs (Anglicans) to the group most likely to do so (Other Christians).
Only on belief in life after death did the proportion of Catholics accepting the doctrine approach that of Other Christians. On the belief and practice scales, Catholics scored significantly lower than Other Christians.
Compared with their parents' generation -- those aged 45-59 -- Generation Y Catholics were very similar on most items of belief and practice, with two exceptions:
-- They are more likely to affirm that God relates to us as a person.
-- They are less likely to find it OK "to pick and choose one's beliefs."
The researchers highlighted these differences as being "striking," because they show the younger generation as more, instead of less, orthodox than their parents' generation. On both points the differences were statistically significant.
Not all was positive, however. Two other differences, described as being less strong and characterized as "trends," were that the Generation Y members are more likely to agree that "morals are relative," and less likely to claim that faith was important or very important in shaping their lives.
The researchers divided the Christians according to levels of involvement with their faith. Among Catholics 29% fell into the committed or active categories, compared with 15% for Anglicans and 53% for the Other Christians. As for the rest of the Catholics, a full 53% were described as marginal or nominal, and another 17% as eclectic.
Sydney's Catholic archbishop commented on the study's findings in a Sept. 28 speech to an education conference. Noting that a relatively high percentage of young Catholics believe it is "OK to pick and choose beliefs," Cardinal George Pell declared he was worried about the current situation.
He observed that these, and other data, indicate "a malaise and confusion in the general approach to life rather than a few isolated points of heresy or unbelief."
The cardinal also noted that the Generation Y survey was not able to detect any religious effect of attendance at Church schools, even though a majority of those who believe in God and attend Church schools say the religious education is helpful.
Benedict XVI recently touched on the Australian situation, in a May 18 speech when he welcomed the country's new ambassador, Anne Maree Plunkett, to the Holy See. Describing the situation of Australia as one where "the disquieting process of secularization is much advanced," the Pope augured that World Youth Day 2008 in Sydney will be "a time of deep ecclesial renewal, especially among the young." A sentiment no doubt shared by many.
ZE06101529
MELBOURNE, Australia, OCT. 15, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A study of the younger generation's spirituality in Australia revealed fairly low levels of religiosity and practice. "The Spirit of Generation Y: Young People, Spirituality and Society" was recently released under the authorship of a team of researchers, led by Redemptorist Father Michael Mason, of the Australian Catholic University.
From 2003 till early 2006 the researchers studied a national sample of young people in their teens and 20s. The methodology relied on surveys and face-to-face interviews.
Researchers found that 48% of Generation Y believe in a God, 20% do not, and 32% are unsure. Two-thirds of those who do not believe in God, or are uncertain, do believe in a "higher being or life-force."
Generation Y refers to the cohort born between 1976 and 1990. They followed Generation X (1961-1975) and the baby boomers (1946-1960). The youngest members of Generation Y were aged 13 when interviews began in 2003, and the oldest were aged 29 at the end of 2005.
"It is likely that this cohort is the first in the last 100 years in which the majority have no memory of frequent church attendance," commented the ample summary of the report. The full report will be published in book form next year.
In general the study found that the social forces influencing contemporary religion and spirituality -- secularization, the relativism of postmodernity, consumer capitalism, individualism -- have a greater impact on younger people.
The researchers concluded that members of Generation Y have taken strongly to two modern principles. They are: that an individual's views and preferences, provided they harm no one else, should not be questioned or constrained; and that spiritual or religious beliefs and practices are purely personal lifestyle choices -- in no way necessary.
In spite of moving away in large numbers from traditional religion they seem to have a strong sense of purpose in their lives, according to the study. There is no evidence of a widespread plague of meaninglessness or social alienation among Generation Y.
This positive finding is in spite of declining support from churches and the local community. As these factors have weakened, younger people have compensated by turning to family and friends.
A private affair
The study identified three main strands in the spirituality of Generation Y.
-- Christian, 44%. Overall, only 19% of Generation Y are actively involved in a church to the extent of attending religious services once a month or more. Conservative Protestant denominations -- 16% of Gen Y -- have by far the highest rates of attendance. Nevertheless, many more believe in God and Jesus, and pray regularly. In general, religion is seen as a private matter. And there is a strong tide of movement among Generation Y Christians away from involvement or identification with a church, and even from religious belief.
-- Eclectic, 17%. This consists in believing in two or more New Age, esoteric or Eastern beliefs (reincarnation, psychics and fortunetellers, ghosts, astrology, etc.) and perhaps engaging in one or more alternative spiritual practices (yoga, Tarot, tai chi). Some of these people attend religious services but most do not. Such beliefs and practices are more common among young women than among young men.
-- Humanist, 31%. This group rejects the idea of God, although a few believe in a "higher being." Almost half believe that there is very little truth in religion, and fewer than a quarter believe in life after death. They also largely reject alternative spiritualities.
The study also revealed that the level of social concern among Generation Y is not high. They tend to be more self-centered and lacking in altruism than older generations. This could be linked to the lower levels of religiosity. In fact, those who are actively involved in service to the community and have positive civic values are far more likely to come from the ranks of those who have spiritual and religious beliefs and actively practice them.
The Catholic Church provided the largest single group among the young people studied. Among them 18% identified themselves as Catholic. Another 8% declared themselves Anglicans, and 16% declared themselves as belonging to one of a variety of other Christian churches. Added up, plus some other minor groups, this gave a total of 48% declaring a religious identification, against 52% lacking any such identification.
The researchers were struck by the numbers without a formal religious identification; it was 17% to 18% higher than the level found in previous Australian census data. The latest national census was carried out in 2001.
Another notable finding was that there is no significant difference in the scores of Generation Y males and females. This confirms other recent research in Australia that young women are overall no more religious than young men. Given that mothers are known to have great influence in the religious socialization of children, "it is hard to overestimate the importance of this finding and its likely consequences," commented the report.
Catholic commitment
On nearly all measures of belief and practice Catholic members of Generation Y are positioned between the Anglican and the Other Christian groups. The scale runs from those least likely to affirm religious beliefs (Anglicans) to the group most likely to do so (Other Christians).
Only on belief in life after death did the proportion of Catholics accepting the doctrine approach that of Other Christians. On the belief and practice scales, Catholics scored significantly lower than Other Christians.
Compared with their parents' generation -- those aged 45-59 -- Generation Y Catholics were very similar on most items of belief and practice, with two exceptions:
-- They are more likely to affirm that God relates to us as a person.
-- They are less likely to find it OK "to pick and choose one's beliefs."
The researchers highlighted these differences as being "striking," because they show the younger generation as more, instead of less, orthodox than their parents' generation. On both points the differences were statistically significant.
Not all was positive, however. Two other differences, described as being less strong and characterized as "trends," were that the Generation Y members are more likely to agree that "morals are relative," and less likely to claim that faith was important or very important in shaping their lives.
The researchers divided the Christians according to levels of involvement with their faith. Among Catholics 29% fell into the committed or active categories, compared with 15% for Anglicans and 53% for the Other Christians. As for the rest of the Catholics, a full 53% were described as marginal or nominal, and another 17% as eclectic.
Sydney's Catholic archbishop commented on the study's findings in a Sept. 28 speech to an education conference. Noting that a relatively high percentage of young Catholics believe it is "OK to pick and choose beliefs," Cardinal George Pell declared he was worried about the current situation.
He observed that these, and other data, indicate "a malaise and confusion in the general approach to life rather than a few isolated points of heresy or unbelief."
The cardinal also noted that the Generation Y survey was not able to detect any religious effect of attendance at Church schools, even though a majority of those who believe in God and attend Church schools say the religious education is helpful.
Benedict XVI recently touched on the Australian situation, in a May 18 speech when he welcomed the country's new ambassador, Anne Maree Plunkett, to the Holy See. Describing the situation of Australia as one where "the disquieting process of secularization is much advanced," the Pope augured that World Youth Day 2008 in Sydney will be "a time of deep ecclesial renewal, especially among the young." A sentiment no doubt shared by many.
ZE06101529
Women’s Ordination, and how to argue for it.
If asked to present arguments for the ordination of women in Anglican dioceses how could one go about the task? A suggestion.
Since the publication of my book, Let Women be Women (Gracewing, Fowler Wright Books, 1990) which presented the case for a male-only Threefold Ministry in the Anglican Family of Churches, I have continued to defend this position and argued against the ordination of women in many articles, essays for the Internet, and talks. In doing all this, I think that I have learned what would seem to me to be one very good (I dare not say the best) way (if I were to change my position) of arguing for the ordination of women to what I may describe as a conservative group of listeners, who have sufficient time to hear the full case. [I present this below in a brief form not to make converts for the innovation of women’s ordination but as an indicator to those who hold to the traditional position of what they need to respond to in order to maintain that position in 2006.]
First of all, I would invite people to look at their own lives in home, education, work, leisure, politics, cultural events, the military and healthcare. There they see men and women on equal terms doing jobs and work of equal importance and being paid or rewarded on equal terms. Both sexes are accorded equal dignity. When it comes to professional services, men go to both women and men and women go to both men and women. I would invite them to consider that the situation in the West, with few exceptions, is that patriarchy has disappeared and that where we see patriarchy at work in the Middle East or other places we tend to be shocked by it, and to desire to support moves to bring equal rights and democracy to these areas so that “women can be free.” So that our daily experience of life is that of the practical reality of the common dignity and equality of male and female persons. (This point has to be made in such a way that it truly “sinks in”!)
Secondly, I would invite people to consider that the removal of patriarchy (and the slave trade and slave ownership before it) from Western nations occurred slowly and through the influence of persons with ideas that included both Christian principles (e.g., all persons are made in God’s image and Christ died for all peoples) and Enlightenment principles (e.g., the dignity of the human person). Further, I would ask them to entertain the possibility that the granting of growing freedoms and rights to women (e.g., to vote and to own property) occurs by the direct providence of God and is his will. After all, do we really think that God desires women to be deemed inferior and subordinate?
Thirdly, I would now ask them to turn to the Bible and to a version such as the RSV or the ASV or the KJV, so as to get a text from which there has been no attempt to remove patriarchy (as is the case with the NRSV and NEB etc.). Then I would show them within the Torah, the Psalms, the Wisdom Books, the Prophets and on into the Gospels and Epistles, that patriarchy is everywhere found and that as a polity and system it is nowhere condemned (although of course misuse and abuse by those exercising patriarchy and rule is certainly condemned). It is important that my hearers get the distinct impression that the Bible is a collection of books wherein patriarchy is assumed as a normal form of human polity.
Fourthly—and here I get to the theological center of my presentation—I would seek to get their full attention and offer an account of a doctrine that God who is omnipotent and omniscient in his glorious eternity and infinity and yet who communicates with his creatures and actually speaks to them. In this amazing act of condescension he does not use the inner language of the Holy Trinity or even the language of the angels, but the language (with its vocabulary, grammar, syntax and ideas) of those to whom the communication and revelation is given. Thus the revelation is in human terms and is necessarily anthropomorphic. Further, within this revelation, who primary purpose is to give knowledge of God as the LORD and Redeemer and to bring the recipients into covenant with himself, God as the Revealer chooses not to say everything that could be said but rather to say and require that which is primary and essential for a covenantal relation. Thus he, the LORD God, accepts (at least for the time being) things which (in a better world and different time) he would not accept. [At this point, when I felt that they were seeing this point of the way that God both communicates and acts within an imperfect world in order to become the Savior, I would suggest a novel idea.] I would suggest that perhaps one of the things that God accepted (though he did not favor) was the patriarchal system, where men exercised headship, and women were subordinate and often also deemed inferior.
Therefore, I would lead them to see that while the whole Bible contains patriarchy as a system, this does not mean that God approves of it as the only and the best system. And I would sow the idea (to take up later) that where it can be removed and the message of grace and salvation retained in whole, then that would be according to his will.
In the fifth place, I would stay with the Bible and ask them to note that there are various hints in the books, especially the NT ones, that God may approve other ways of human organization than patriarchy. As far as we know, there will be no patriarchy in heaven in the company of the redeemed, even if there is a permanent hierarchy in the angel hosts! A common dignity and honor, conferred by grace, will be given in heaven to all the redeemed and women in their resurrection bodies of glory will not be subordinate to men, and there will be no marriage in heaven. Further, in this world, there are moments when patriarchy seems to disappear, as when Deborah leads Israel, wealthy widows lead house churches in the NT, a woman is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus, certain women act as apostles/messengers in and amongst the churches of the NT period, and did not God choose a lowly maiden to be the mother of the Messiah, Theotokos (the one who gave birth to God the Son)?
Seventhly, I would ask my hearers to return to the world of 2006 in the West, where women serve in senior posts in government, the military, business, commerce, education, the media, health services, and so on; further, they are accepted in these positions by a vast majority of the population. And I would go on to suggest that, if God only tolerated patriarchy in biblical and later times, and if patriarchy is now disappeared from western society, then this allows the churches with all care and caution to experiment with the ordination of women and their deployment in parishes. And in doing so they do not need to spend half their lives seeking to find ways to explain away the patriarchy that is endemic in the biblical literature! They accept that it is there and because God allowed it.
In the eighth place, I would advise them if they wished to allow this experiment to go smoothly to cease to use (a) the historic BCP (which assumes patriarchy as God’s will); (b) the traditional Bible translations; and (c) many traditional hymns. I would recommend instead modern liturgies, modern Bible translations based upon dynamic equivalency and modern hymns (or edited old ones). Also I would advise less use of terms like “Father” and “King” and “Lord” for God and more use of non-masculine names and titles. After all, the eternal Creator is not male, even if Jesus became Man.
Ninthly, I would warn them that to introduce the ordination of women is not only an innovation (it is really only known in recent times) but also a revolution; and to thus to be prepared for all kinds of implications and complications. Here are examples of what may happen in terms of questions asked:
(a) If God accommodated himself to human language and to human (evil) patriarchy, what else did he accommodate to that we need to be aware of?
(b) If patriarchy in human society is not God’s will, how are we to regard the addressing of God as “Father” both by Jesus and by us? Is the Lord’s Prayer to be revised to omit “Our Father”?
(c) Do we need to construct a whole new range of names, metaphors and similes by which to describe God and speak to God – ones that imply the equality of male and female?
(d) If the emancipation of women during the last century or more is God’s will, then are all parts of that emancipation his will or just some parts? That is, are all rights and freedoms given to women now in Western nations the will of God for them? If not, where and how do we draw the line between the good and the not-so good and the good and the bad?
(e) If the emancipation of women is in whole or part God’s providential will then are also the new rights and freedoms given to covenanted faithful same-sex couples, to unmarried couples, and to divorced persons?
(f) What are we to do if men stop coming to churches where women are in charge as pastors?
(g) What are we to do with recalcitrant male clergy who continually cause trouble for female clergy?
(h) Should we require that female clergy be celibate so that they are not distracted by pregnancies and child rearing?
Finally, I would wish them “good luck in the name of the Lord” (to quote Coverdale).
The Rev Dr Peter Toon. October 21, 2006
Since the publication of my book, Let Women be Women (Gracewing, Fowler Wright Books, 1990) which presented the case for a male-only Threefold Ministry in the Anglican Family of Churches, I have continued to defend this position and argued against the ordination of women in many articles, essays for the Internet, and talks. In doing all this, I think that I have learned what would seem to me to be one very good (I dare not say the best) way (if I were to change my position) of arguing for the ordination of women to what I may describe as a conservative group of listeners, who have sufficient time to hear the full case. [I present this below in a brief form not to make converts for the innovation of women’s ordination but as an indicator to those who hold to the traditional position of what they need to respond to in order to maintain that position in 2006.]
First of all, I would invite people to look at their own lives in home, education, work, leisure, politics, cultural events, the military and healthcare. There they see men and women on equal terms doing jobs and work of equal importance and being paid or rewarded on equal terms. Both sexes are accorded equal dignity. When it comes to professional services, men go to both women and men and women go to both men and women. I would invite them to consider that the situation in the West, with few exceptions, is that patriarchy has disappeared and that where we see patriarchy at work in the Middle East or other places we tend to be shocked by it, and to desire to support moves to bring equal rights and democracy to these areas so that “women can be free.” So that our daily experience of life is that of the practical reality of the common dignity and equality of male and female persons. (This point has to be made in such a way that it truly “sinks in”!)
Secondly, I would invite people to consider that the removal of patriarchy (and the slave trade and slave ownership before it) from Western nations occurred slowly and through the influence of persons with ideas that included both Christian principles (e.g., all persons are made in God’s image and Christ died for all peoples) and Enlightenment principles (e.g., the dignity of the human person). Further, I would ask them to entertain the possibility that the granting of growing freedoms and rights to women (e.g., to vote and to own property) occurs by the direct providence of God and is his will. After all, do we really think that God desires women to be deemed inferior and subordinate?
Thirdly, I would now ask them to turn to the Bible and to a version such as the RSV or the ASV or the KJV, so as to get a text from which there has been no attempt to remove patriarchy (as is the case with the NRSV and NEB etc.). Then I would show them within the Torah, the Psalms, the Wisdom Books, the Prophets and on into the Gospels and Epistles, that patriarchy is everywhere found and that as a polity and system it is nowhere condemned (although of course misuse and abuse by those exercising patriarchy and rule is certainly condemned). It is important that my hearers get the distinct impression that the Bible is a collection of books wherein patriarchy is assumed as a normal form of human polity.
Fourthly—and here I get to the theological center of my presentation—I would seek to get their full attention and offer an account of a doctrine that God who is omnipotent and omniscient in his glorious eternity and infinity and yet who communicates with his creatures and actually speaks to them. In this amazing act of condescension he does not use the inner language of the Holy Trinity or even the language of the angels, but the language (with its vocabulary, grammar, syntax and ideas) of those to whom the communication and revelation is given. Thus the revelation is in human terms and is necessarily anthropomorphic. Further, within this revelation, who primary purpose is to give knowledge of God as the LORD and Redeemer and to bring the recipients into covenant with himself, God as the Revealer chooses not to say everything that could be said but rather to say and require that which is primary and essential for a covenantal relation. Thus he, the LORD God, accepts (at least for the time being) things which (in a better world and different time) he would not accept. [At this point, when I felt that they were seeing this point of the way that God both communicates and acts within an imperfect world in order to become the Savior, I would suggest a novel idea.] I would suggest that perhaps one of the things that God accepted (though he did not favor) was the patriarchal system, where men exercised headship, and women were subordinate and often also deemed inferior.
Therefore, I would lead them to see that while the whole Bible contains patriarchy as a system, this does not mean that God approves of it as the only and the best system. And I would sow the idea (to take up later) that where it can be removed and the message of grace and salvation retained in whole, then that would be according to his will.
In the fifth place, I would stay with the Bible and ask them to note that there are various hints in the books, especially the NT ones, that God may approve other ways of human organization than patriarchy. As far as we know, there will be no patriarchy in heaven in the company of the redeemed, even if there is a permanent hierarchy in the angel hosts! A common dignity and honor, conferred by grace, will be given in heaven to all the redeemed and women in their resurrection bodies of glory will not be subordinate to men, and there will be no marriage in heaven. Further, in this world, there are moments when patriarchy seems to disappear, as when Deborah leads Israel, wealthy widows lead house churches in the NT, a woman is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus, certain women act as apostles/messengers in and amongst the churches of the NT period, and did not God choose a lowly maiden to be the mother of the Messiah, Theotokos (the one who gave birth to God the Son)?
Seventhly, I would ask my hearers to return to the world of 2006 in the West, where women serve in senior posts in government, the military, business, commerce, education, the media, health services, and so on; further, they are accepted in these positions by a vast majority of the population. And I would go on to suggest that, if God only tolerated patriarchy in biblical and later times, and if patriarchy is now disappeared from western society, then this allows the churches with all care and caution to experiment with the ordination of women and their deployment in parishes. And in doing so they do not need to spend half their lives seeking to find ways to explain away the patriarchy that is endemic in the biblical literature! They accept that it is there and because God allowed it.
In the eighth place, I would advise them if they wished to allow this experiment to go smoothly to cease to use (a) the historic BCP (which assumes patriarchy as God’s will); (b) the traditional Bible translations; and (c) many traditional hymns. I would recommend instead modern liturgies, modern Bible translations based upon dynamic equivalency and modern hymns (or edited old ones). Also I would advise less use of terms like “Father” and “King” and “Lord” for God and more use of non-masculine names and titles. After all, the eternal Creator is not male, even if Jesus became Man.
Ninthly, I would warn them that to introduce the ordination of women is not only an innovation (it is really only known in recent times) but also a revolution; and to thus to be prepared for all kinds of implications and complications. Here are examples of what may happen in terms of questions asked:
(a) If God accommodated himself to human language and to human (evil) patriarchy, what else did he accommodate to that we need to be aware of?
(b) If patriarchy in human society is not God’s will, how are we to regard the addressing of God as “Father” both by Jesus and by us? Is the Lord’s Prayer to be revised to omit “Our Father”?
(c) Do we need to construct a whole new range of names, metaphors and similes by which to describe God and speak to God – ones that imply the equality of male and female?
(d) If the emancipation of women during the last century or more is God’s will, then are all parts of that emancipation his will or just some parts? That is, are all rights and freedoms given to women now in Western nations the will of God for them? If not, where and how do we draw the line between the good and the not-so good and the good and the bad?
(e) If the emancipation of women is in whole or part God’s providential will then are also the new rights and freedoms given to covenanted faithful same-sex couples, to unmarried couples, and to divorced persons?
(f) What are we to do if men stop coming to churches where women are in charge as pastors?
(g) What are we to do with recalcitrant male clergy who continually cause trouble for female clergy?
(h) Should we require that female clergy be celibate so that they are not distracted by pregnancies and child rearing?
Finally, I would wish them “good luck in the name of the Lord” (to quote Coverdale).
The Rev Dr Peter Toon. October 21, 2006
Commemorating all the Saints: All Saints’ Day, November 1
It is most appropriate that the series of holy days, on which the Church commemorates particular saints, should come to a conclusion and indeed be crowned—near the end of the Church Year of The Book of Common Prayer—with one comprehensive commemoration of all God’s “servants departed this life in his faith and fear” and whose names are written in the “Book of Life” (Philip. 4:3). Many are those who have died, not known to, or forgotten by, us, as faithful servants and witnesses—even martyrs—of the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that they are with Christ in Paradise waiting for the completion of redemption at his return to earth, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of the nations and the glorious life of the age to come.
Since the Latin collect used in the medieval Church contained doctrines which had been rejected by the Reformed Church of England, it was necessary for a new collect to be composed and what is in The Book of Common Prayer is the collect composed in 1549 by Archbishop Cranmer and his colleagues.
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
In a modern form it could be rendered as:
Almighty God, who have knit together your elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of your Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow your blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which you have prepared for them that sincerely love you; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Let us note that:
(a) God, the Father, is addressed as “Almighty” the Creator and Ruler of heaven and earth, who is all-powerful and who has a rich saving and redeeming purpose for his creation (see Ephesians 1-3).
(b) In his presence, those offering the prayer engage in prayerful meditation to remember a particularly rich truth about what God has done in his saving work of mankind—the sanctification of his elect people. And this is done by means of a relative clause (as in the traditional Latin collects from the fifth century and later).
(c) The petition, which is doctrinally dependent upon what is remembered in (b), is a comprehensive request to be given divine help to follow in the steps of the virtuous and now deceased saints.
(d) The petition is offered to God the Father Almighty in the Name and through the Mediation of his Incarnate Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
As the collect was written in English, and the verb “to knit” was specifically chosen by the author(s), we need to recall that this verb referred to the usually womanly work by the use of long needles of causing the union and interlocking of yarn or wool by interlacing in order to make cloth to become a garment. The verb to knit was also used of the fusion of a bone after it had been broken. It would seem that the author(s) probably had this second meaning primarily in mind because they used “knit” rather than “knitted” and “knit” was the usual form used with reference to uniting bones. But we can profitably see both meanings as making fruitful suggestions concerning the relation of believers to Christ and one another.
[Let us note that the verb “to knit” is also used in the King James Version of 1611 and in modern versions. In Colossians 2:19, for example, the ESV follows the KJV to use the verb “knit” with reference to the members of the Body of Christ, who is the Head of the Body: “…the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.” Colossians 2:1-2 may also be noted.]
Those whom God has knit together in one Body, the mystical Body of Christ, are his elect, his chosen ones, of whom St Paul speaks eloquently in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8. They were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be saved and to glorify the Father through the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. [Article XVII of The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (written by the same bishops who prepared the BCP) carefully presents the doctrine of election.] All those, who believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus, are baptized, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and made members of the One Body of Christ, are united by the same Holy Spirit into one communion and one fellowship. They all belong to the one Head and are interconnected, knit-together members/parts of his one Body. This communion and fellowship is at once universal and local. Locally it is experienced as Christian fellowship within the congregation of Christ’s flock but universally it exists through the Holy Spirit across space and time for the one omnipresent Spirit is in union with the one Lord Jesus Christ who is in heaven. Further, and very importantly, the communion and fellowship through the one Spirit also crosses the barrier of death and unites the Church militant on earth with the Church expectant in Paradise. Thus pilgrims on earth and united with those who have reached the goal of their pilgrimage.
So, moving on to the petition in this collect, we are invited to focus on the fact that that there is one communion in Christ and by the Spirit, that this fellowship ultimately takes no account of the barrier of death, and that within this communion and fellowship the active relation of baptized believers yet on earth to their brethren in Paradise is that of following in their footsteps in order to join them where they are in Paradise.
But not any kind of following! We are to follow the saints by living in the manner they did in terms of faithfulness, obedience and love. Our living is to be “virtuous and godly”—that is, it is to be according to Christian virtue (moral excellence) and according to godliness (wholly directed to God and his praise). And, as one saint wrote, speaking for all saints, “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ!” (1 Cor. 11:1). In following in the steps of all saints, we are recognizing that virtue and godliness can be expressed in many different ways in vastly different situations and contexts. Following one saint may mean being too much influenced by an idiosyncracy in him or her; but following all the saints as they followed Christ cannot be but the very healthiest forms of walking in holiness.
We recognize in practice our communion and fellowship with the departed saints not only by treading in their footsteps (as they trod in those of Christ) but also by looking forward in hope and longing to that true happiness which they now enjoy in Paradise. And this fervent hope and profound desire is expressed so powerfully in the collect: it is that we may come to those unspeakable joys which the Father has prepared for them that sincerely love him, and may do so through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Therefore the Collects for Saints’ Days in the Prayer Book end with a presentation of the clarity of the Christian hope in relation not to one saint but to them all—all those who have been sanctified by the Spirit and are in and with Christ in Paradise. What the perfected saints now enjoy through the grace of God, all faithful followers of the Lord Jesus will also enjoy when they are promoted first to Paradise and then, at the end of the age, with all the saints of the old and new covenants of grace, into the glory of the new Jerusalem in resurrection bodies, like unto Christ’s own glorious body.
Appendix
The collect that was discarded at the Reformation as translated into traditional English was:
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast granted us under one solemnity to show reverence to the merits of all the saints; Pour down upon us, we beseech thee, at the request of these many intercessors, that abundance of mercy which we so much need and desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Here we get in prayer several things rejected by the reformed Church of England—the merits of the saints and the intercession of the saints.
Also the reformed Church of England rejected altogether the calling and use of November 2, the day after All Saints’ Day, as “All Souls’ Day,” for this presupposed the doctrine of purgatory, rejected in Article XXII. In recent times, commemoration of the faithful departed has been allowed in Anglican Provinces through the use of collects provided in the new liturgies. However, the Anglican approach does not require the R.C. doctrine of purgatory.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon October 21, 2006
Since the Latin collect used in the medieval Church contained doctrines which had been rejected by the Reformed Church of England, it was necessary for a new collect to be composed and what is in The Book of Common Prayer is the collect composed in 1549 by Archbishop Cranmer and his colleagues.
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
In a modern form it could be rendered as:
Almighty God, who have knit together your elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of your Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow your blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which you have prepared for them that sincerely love you; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Let us note that:
(a) God, the Father, is addressed as “Almighty” the Creator and Ruler of heaven and earth, who is all-powerful and who has a rich saving and redeeming purpose for his creation (see Ephesians 1-3).
(b) In his presence, those offering the prayer engage in prayerful meditation to remember a particularly rich truth about what God has done in his saving work of mankind—the sanctification of his elect people. And this is done by means of a relative clause (as in the traditional Latin collects from the fifth century and later).
(c) The petition, which is doctrinally dependent upon what is remembered in (b), is a comprehensive request to be given divine help to follow in the steps of the virtuous and now deceased saints.
(d) The petition is offered to God the Father Almighty in the Name and through the Mediation of his Incarnate Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
As the collect was written in English, and the verb “to knit” was specifically chosen by the author(s), we need to recall that this verb referred to the usually womanly work by the use of long needles of causing the union and interlocking of yarn or wool by interlacing in order to make cloth to become a garment. The verb to knit was also used of the fusion of a bone after it had been broken. It would seem that the author(s) probably had this second meaning primarily in mind because they used “knit” rather than “knitted” and “knit” was the usual form used with reference to uniting bones. But we can profitably see both meanings as making fruitful suggestions concerning the relation of believers to Christ and one another.
[Let us note that the verb “to knit” is also used in the King James Version of 1611 and in modern versions. In Colossians 2:19, for example, the ESV follows the KJV to use the verb “knit” with reference to the members of the Body of Christ, who is the Head of the Body: “…the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.” Colossians 2:1-2 may also be noted.]
Those whom God has knit together in one Body, the mystical Body of Christ, are his elect, his chosen ones, of whom St Paul speaks eloquently in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8. They were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be saved and to glorify the Father through the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. [Article XVII of The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (written by the same bishops who prepared the BCP) carefully presents the doctrine of election.] All those, who believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus, are baptized, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and made members of the One Body of Christ, are united by the same Holy Spirit into one communion and one fellowship. They all belong to the one Head and are interconnected, knit-together members/parts of his one Body. This communion and fellowship is at once universal and local. Locally it is experienced as Christian fellowship within the congregation of Christ’s flock but universally it exists through the Holy Spirit across space and time for the one omnipresent Spirit is in union with the one Lord Jesus Christ who is in heaven. Further, and very importantly, the communion and fellowship through the one Spirit also crosses the barrier of death and unites the Church militant on earth with the Church expectant in Paradise. Thus pilgrims on earth and united with those who have reached the goal of their pilgrimage.
So, moving on to the petition in this collect, we are invited to focus on the fact that that there is one communion in Christ and by the Spirit, that this fellowship ultimately takes no account of the barrier of death, and that within this communion and fellowship the active relation of baptized believers yet on earth to their brethren in Paradise is that of following in their footsteps in order to join them where they are in Paradise.
But not any kind of following! We are to follow the saints by living in the manner they did in terms of faithfulness, obedience and love. Our living is to be “virtuous and godly”—that is, it is to be according to Christian virtue (moral excellence) and according to godliness (wholly directed to God and his praise). And, as one saint wrote, speaking for all saints, “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ!” (1 Cor. 11:1). In following in the steps of all saints, we are recognizing that virtue and godliness can be expressed in many different ways in vastly different situations and contexts. Following one saint may mean being too much influenced by an idiosyncracy in him or her; but following all the saints as they followed Christ cannot be but the very healthiest forms of walking in holiness.
We recognize in practice our communion and fellowship with the departed saints not only by treading in their footsteps (as they trod in those of Christ) but also by looking forward in hope and longing to that true happiness which they now enjoy in Paradise. And this fervent hope and profound desire is expressed so powerfully in the collect: it is that we may come to those unspeakable joys which the Father has prepared for them that sincerely love him, and may do so through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Therefore the Collects for Saints’ Days in the Prayer Book end with a presentation of the clarity of the Christian hope in relation not to one saint but to them all—all those who have been sanctified by the Spirit and are in and with Christ in Paradise. What the perfected saints now enjoy through the grace of God, all faithful followers of the Lord Jesus will also enjoy when they are promoted first to Paradise and then, at the end of the age, with all the saints of the old and new covenants of grace, into the glory of the new Jerusalem in resurrection bodies, like unto Christ’s own glorious body.
Appendix
The collect that was discarded at the Reformation as translated into traditional English was:
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast granted us under one solemnity to show reverence to the merits of all the saints; Pour down upon us, we beseech thee, at the request of these many intercessors, that abundance of mercy which we so much need and desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Here we get in prayer several things rejected by the reformed Church of England—the merits of the saints and the intercession of the saints.
Also the reformed Church of England rejected altogether the calling and use of November 2, the day after All Saints’ Day, as “All Souls’ Day,” for this presupposed the doctrine of purgatory, rejected in Article XXII. In recent times, commemoration of the faithful departed has been allowed in Anglican Provinces through the use of collects provided in the new liturgies. However, the Anglican approach does not require the R.C. doctrine of purgatory.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon October 21, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
Wisdom from Burundi - a little place but a lot of wisdom
ACNS 4202 BURUNDI 19 OCTOBER 2006
Statement from the Anglican Church of Burundi on the Anglican Communion
The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Burundi received and discussed the Archbishop of Canterbury's reflection "The Challenge and Hope of Being Anglican Today" in which he sets out his thinking concerning the future of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church of Burundi wishes to commend it as a working document in the process of pastoral care within the Communion so that channels for constructive dialogue and fellowship with Provinces of the Anglican Communion may be maintained in the future.
The Anglican Church of Burundi remains committed to the Anglican Communion and to endeavouring to work with all the Primates who have been entrusted with leadership of its Provinces. We are committed to the Gospel imperative to maintain unity and communion that is rooted in truth and love. We are called to be a "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" church and to affirm loyalty to the authority of Scripture and the traditional teachings of the Church. Though we recognise the principle of unity in diversity, Scripture should remain our guide in all matters of doctrine, ethics and decision-making. As has become apparent, we ignore Biblical teaching, the Apostolic Faith, and Church practice at our peril, and compromise our unity, fellowship, and communion. We must pray that we shall find ways to move forward with renewed commitment to "keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph.4v3)
We recognise the interdependence of Provinces and the responsibilities that we have towards one another. We regret, however, that decisions taken by some Provinces have led to a fracturing of the unity of the Church to such an extent that it has threatened the future of the Anglican Communion as a communion.
It is regrettable that these decisions also threaten our relationships with other denominations, and the mission and witness of the Church in a world that is already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology.
We recommend therefore that our relationships should be guided by the decisions of the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution I. 10 and Resolution III. 2(e), the Windsor Report recommendations, and the Dromantine requests.
As those called to fulfill the Great Commission of Christ, we need to find ways to join together under God's grace and, with repentance and faith, encourage one another in the work of the Kingdom. We need to continue to prayerfully encourage understanding and dialogue and re-assess structures and ways of drawing closer to each other rather than walking apart. Such should be the spirit of our communion.
We support the idea of an Anglican Covenant and trust that it will, as the recent Kigali Communiqué states, "demonstrate to the world that it is possible to be a truly global communion where differences are not affirmed at the expense of faith and truth but within the framework of a common confession of faith and mutual accountability".
Finally, we believe that hope for the Anglican Communion is dependent on the Church worldwide earnestly seeking a deep work of the Holy Spirit that will lead to repentance, forgiveness, revival, and healing. We should work for a Church characterised by justice and compassion that strives to be a sanctuary of care where the truth can be told with love.
Only then will we be able to meet the challenge to walk together in a way that honours the name of Christ whom we seek to serve, and witness to his reconciling love in a hurting and fragmented world.
Issued: Bujumbura October 2006
The Most Rev. Bernard NTAHOTURI
Archbishop of Burundi
___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London
Statement from the Anglican Church of Burundi on the Anglican Communion
The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Burundi received and discussed the Archbishop of Canterbury's reflection "The Challenge and Hope of Being Anglican Today" in which he sets out his thinking concerning the future of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church of Burundi wishes to commend it as a working document in the process of pastoral care within the Communion so that channels for constructive dialogue and fellowship with Provinces of the Anglican Communion may be maintained in the future.
The Anglican Church of Burundi remains committed to the Anglican Communion and to endeavouring to work with all the Primates who have been entrusted with leadership of its Provinces. We are committed to the Gospel imperative to maintain unity and communion that is rooted in truth and love. We are called to be a "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" church and to affirm loyalty to the authority of Scripture and the traditional teachings of the Church. Though we recognise the principle of unity in diversity, Scripture should remain our guide in all matters of doctrine, ethics and decision-making. As has become apparent, we ignore Biblical teaching, the Apostolic Faith, and Church practice at our peril, and compromise our unity, fellowship, and communion. We must pray that we shall find ways to move forward with renewed commitment to "keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph.4v3)
We recognise the interdependence of Provinces and the responsibilities that we have towards one another. We regret, however, that decisions taken by some Provinces have led to a fracturing of the unity of the Church to such an extent that it has threatened the future of the Anglican Communion as a communion.
It is regrettable that these decisions also threaten our relationships with other denominations, and the mission and witness of the Church in a world that is already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology.
We recommend therefore that our relationships should be guided by the decisions of the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution I. 10 and Resolution III. 2(e), the Windsor Report recommendations, and the Dromantine requests.
As those called to fulfill the Great Commission of Christ, we need to find ways to join together under God's grace and, with repentance and faith, encourage one another in the work of the Kingdom. We need to continue to prayerfully encourage understanding and dialogue and re-assess structures and ways of drawing closer to each other rather than walking apart. Such should be the spirit of our communion.
We support the idea of an Anglican Covenant and trust that it will, as the recent Kigali Communiqué states, "demonstrate to the world that it is possible to be a truly global communion where differences are not affirmed at the expense of faith and truth but within the framework of a common confession of faith and mutual accountability".
Finally, we believe that hope for the Anglican Communion is dependent on the Church worldwide earnestly seeking a deep work of the Holy Spirit that will lead to repentance, forgiveness, revival, and healing. We should work for a Church characterised by justice and compassion that strives to be a sanctuary of care where the truth can be told with love.
Only then will we be able to meet the challenge to walk together in a way that honours the name of Christ whom we seek to serve, and witness to his reconciling love in a hurting and fragmented world.
Issued: Bujumbura October 2006
The Most Rev. Bernard NTAHOTURI
Archbishop of Burundi
___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Heresy: what is it?
A mind-stretching reflection that may need correction!
All informed Christians have heard of heresies—concerning the nature of God (e.g., Modalism and Tritheism); concerning Jesus of Nazareth (e.g., Nestorianism and Monophysitism) and concerning the grace of God (e.g., Pelagianism). In recent years we have been introduced to new heresies—e.g., that same-sex covenanted partnerships are holy before God, and that in baptism each and every person is given by God in embryo and potential the gift of every form of ministry known, utilized and practiced in the church.
One could claim, even want to assert, that heresies are simply irrelevant to orthodoxy and have nothing in common with it whatsoever. One could also assert that they are, in fact, pure forms of error, owning nothing to the truth. However attractive it may be to hold this kind of approach of heresy as being just error, it is basically untenable because of the basic principle of Christian philosophy that evil has no positive being of its own but is necessarily a defect of something that is good.
Let us now hear from my learned and godly tutor of many years ago, Dr. Eric Mascall, on what is heresy:
In some way or another we are bound to hold that heresies arise when one aspect or element of orthodoxy gets detached from the rest and develops on its own without the controlling and balancing influence which the others would be capable of bringing to bear on it. The detached element may become stunted or hypertrophied as circumstances may dictate, and even if by some chance it more or less retains its original shape its detachment from the other elements will inevitably lead it to exercise a one-sided and exaggerated influence upon thought and practice. Nevertheless the fact remains that whatever is positive in heresy must be something essentially orthodox; and the way in which orthodoxy treads the via media between the heresies is—to change the metaphor—by rectifying, appropriating and reconciling their several affirmations. And—need it be added?—by doing this, orthodoxy finds itself enriched and strengthened. [Via Media, 1957, p.xii]
Obviously heresy arises within Christianity and is not something that is imported into the Church as a finished product. That all the major heresies contain a major element of orthodoxy is easily verifiable by the study of the major heresies that were encountered in the Early Church—e.g., Arianism was a form of Tritheism because it separated too radically the essence/substance being of each of the Three Person, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but is was right to insist on the Trinity
Dr Mascall sustains his thesis of orthodoxy treading a holy via media by taking four examples—the doctrine of Creation, the Processions of the Persons within the Holy Trinity, the unconfused union of two natures in the One Christ, and the doctrine of grace as conferring deified creaturehood. If you have the mental commitment, this book is well worth reading!
I shall not attempt to summarize the presentation. Rather, I will briefly investigate whether that which Dr Mascall did not envisage for the Church of England when he wrote the book in 1957—I refer to the ordination of women—is, on his terms, a heresy, and, if it is not, then what it is.
So, first of all, we ask: Is there here with this doctrine of women’s ordination one aspect or element of orthodoxy that has got detached from the rest and has developed on its own without the controlling and balancing influence which the others would be capable of bringing to bear on it?
By way of answer one could say that the act of ordination (the use of laying on of hands with prayer) has been detached from such elements as (a) the biblical doctrine of order in creation where, within the equality of man and women, there is a headship given to the man, and (b) the example of Jesus who chose only men to be his apostles, who in turn chose only men to be their successors. Having been set free from such elements, then the act of ordination can become the experience of anyone whom the bishops place before them.
Or, from another standpoint by way of answer, one could say that the vocation of women within the church has got detached from its proper, valuable forms of ministry and service through the influence of the women’s liberation movement, and has been transferred to a new place prepared and carved out for it in the 1960s and 1970s in the mainline churches by the same movement. And in all this the reaching for equality with dignity by women in the church has been confused with being ordained.
Obviously the ordination of women is not pure error; it is better regarded as the misplacement and misdirection of several important and good things—the devotion of women to Jesus the Lord; the vocation of women to serve him; the gifts and graces of women; the recognition of the full dignity and equality of women before God and in Christian service, and so on..
And one could proceed to say that it should be only men whom the Lord calls who are actually ordained, and that ordaining women—whatever the good motives for so doing and whatever the excellencies of the women involved—is a major mistake. Thus the ordination of women is a heresy. It is what seems to be in modern western thought an apparently good thing, but only good in the estimation of human beings guided by the human rights and human potential movements. If God does not will it then it cannot be good in his sight.
Further, one could go on to show that ordaining men is the way of the true via media between two heresies or extremes or poles, just as Trinitarian Orthodoxy is the via media between Modalism and Tritheism. What then are the two poles between which the ordination of men occurs?
In the Early Church one pole was that of the charismatic local assembly where every-member ministry was in operation and leadership was associated with the exercise of spiritual gifts and thus could be female or male. The other pole was a more settled situation but very much relying on the frequent or infrequent visits of traveling evangelists, prophets and teachers. In between the ministry of male presbyters and pastors (epsicopoi), assisted by deacons, was the via media and that which became in gradual development the settled threefold Ministry of the Church. Even as Jesus had chosen only men to be apostles, and only men were elders (presbyteroi) in the synagogues, so the church’s ordained Ministry was male. However, wealthy widows often served as hostesses for the meetings of the churches in their homes.
Of course, if the ordination of women is a heresy it is one amongst several, even many, in the mainline denominations today. In fact where women’s ordination is closely tied in origin and exercise to the women’s liberation movement, it is itself often closely tied with these heresies, often beginning with the theology of Panentheism and embracing Pelagianism, and including the holiness of same-sex partnerships. But if women’s ordination is not a heresy it is most certainly a major innovation in the Christian Church for it has led not only to a major change in the nature of the Ministry but also in the way that the Church speaks of and addresses God, since women cannot be expected continually to address an all-male God!
October 19, 2006 drpetertoon@yahoo.com
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
All informed Christians have heard of heresies—concerning the nature of God (e.g., Modalism and Tritheism); concerning Jesus of Nazareth (e.g., Nestorianism and Monophysitism) and concerning the grace of God (e.g., Pelagianism). In recent years we have been introduced to new heresies—e.g., that same-sex covenanted partnerships are holy before God, and that in baptism each and every person is given by God in embryo and potential the gift of every form of ministry known, utilized and practiced in the church.
One could claim, even want to assert, that heresies are simply irrelevant to orthodoxy and have nothing in common with it whatsoever. One could also assert that they are, in fact, pure forms of error, owning nothing to the truth. However attractive it may be to hold this kind of approach of heresy as being just error, it is basically untenable because of the basic principle of Christian philosophy that evil has no positive being of its own but is necessarily a defect of something that is good.
Let us now hear from my learned and godly tutor of many years ago, Dr. Eric Mascall, on what is heresy:
In some way or another we are bound to hold that heresies arise when one aspect or element of orthodoxy gets detached from the rest and develops on its own without the controlling and balancing influence which the others would be capable of bringing to bear on it. The detached element may become stunted or hypertrophied as circumstances may dictate, and even if by some chance it more or less retains its original shape its detachment from the other elements will inevitably lead it to exercise a one-sided and exaggerated influence upon thought and practice. Nevertheless the fact remains that whatever is positive in heresy must be something essentially orthodox; and the way in which orthodoxy treads the via media between the heresies is—to change the metaphor—by rectifying, appropriating and reconciling their several affirmations. And—need it be added?—by doing this, orthodoxy finds itself enriched and strengthened. [Via Media, 1957, p.xii]
Obviously heresy arises within Christianity and is not something that is imported into the Church as a finished product. That all the major heresies contain a major element of orthodoxy is easily verifiable by the study of the major heresies that were encountered in the Early Church—e.g., Arianism was a form of Tritheism because it separated too radically the essence/substance being of each of the Three Person, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but is was right to insist on the Trinity
Dr Mascall sustains his thesis of orthodoxy treading a holy via media by taking four examples—the doctrine of Creation, the Processions of the Persons within the Holy Trinity, the unconfused union of two natures in the One Christ, and the doctrine of grace as conferring deified creaturehood. If you have the mental commitment, this book is well worth reading!
I shall not attempt to summarize the presentation. Rather, I will briefly investigate whether that which Dr Mascall did not envisage for the Church of England when he wrote the book in 1957—I refer to the ordination of women—is, on his terms, a heresy, and, if it is not, then what it is.
So, first of all, we ask: Is there here with this doctrine of women’s ordination one aspect or element of orthodoxy that has got detached from the rest and has developed on its own without the controlling and balancing influence which the others would be capable of bringing to bear on it?
By way of answer one could say that the act of ordination (the use of laying on of hands with prayer) has been detached from such elements as (a) the biblical doctrine of order in creation where, within the equality of man and women, there is a headship given to the man, and (b) the example of Jesus who chose only men to be his apostles, who in turn chose only men to be their successors. Having been set free from such elements, then the act of ordination can become the experience of anyone whom the bishops place before them.
Or, from another standpoint by way of answer, one could say that the vocation of women within the church has got detached from its proper, valuable forms of ministry and service through the influence of the women’s liberation movement, and has been transferred to a new place prepared and carved out for it in the 1960s and 1970s in the mainline churches by the same movement. And in all this the reaching for equality with dignity by women in the church has been confused with being ordained.
Obviously the ordination of women is not pure error; it is better regarded as the misplacement and misdirection of several important and good things—the devotion of women to Jesus the Lord; the vocation of women to serve him; the gifts and graces of women; the recognition of the full dignity and equality of women before God and in Christian service, and so on..
And one could proceed to say that it should be only men whom the Lord calls who are actually ordained, and that ordaining women—whatever the good motives for so doing and whatever the excellencies of the women involved—is a major mistake. Thus the ordination of women is a heresy. It is what seems to be in modern western thought an apparently good thing, but only good in the estimation of human beings guided by the human rights and human potential movements. If God does not will it then it cannot be good in his sight.
Further, one could go on to show that ordaining men is the way of the true via media between two heresies or extremes or poles, just as Trinitarian Orthodoxy is the via media between Modalism and Tritheism. What then are the two poles between which the ordination of men occurs?
In the Early Church one pole was that of the charismatic local assembly where every-member ministry was in operation and leadership was associated with the exercise of spiritual gifts and thus could be female or male. The other pole was a more settled situation but very much relying on the frequent or infrequent visits of traveling evangelists, prophets and teachers. In between the ministry of male presbyters and pastors (epsicopoi), assisted by deacons, was the via media and that which became in gradual development the settled threefold Ministry of the Church. Even as Jesus had chosen only men to be apostles, and only men were elders (presbyteroi) in the synagogues, so the church’s ordained Ministry was male. However, wealthy widows often served as hostesses for the meetings of the churches in their homes.
Of course, if the ordination of women is a heresy it is one amongst several, even many, in the mainline denominations today. In fact where women’s ordination is closely tied in origin and exercise to the women’s liberation movement, it is itself often closely tied with these heresies, often beginning with the theology of Panentheism and embracing Pelagianism, and including the holiness of same-sex partnerships. But if women’s ordination is not a heresy it is most certainly a major innovation in the Christian Church for it has led not only to a major change in the nature of the Ministry but also in the way that the Church speaks of and addresses God, since women cannot be expected continually to address an all-male God!
October 19, 2006 drpetertoon@yahoo.com
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Collects for the Saints’ Days in the BCP
Information for pondering and discussing
According to The Book of Common Prayer (1662) twenty days in the Christian Year from Advent to the end of Trinity are observed in memory of certain New Testament Saints. One very interesting and important fact about the Collects for these days is that most of them are not translations of Latin originals found in the medieval and late patristic Sacramentaries. Rather, they are new creations by Archbishop Cranmer and his colleagues. In contrast, virtually all the Collects for the Sundays and major festivals of the Christian Year are translations of Latin originals from earlier times.
So the question arises: Why is it, with the exception of the Purification and Annunciation, that the Latin originals of the collects for these commemorations of saints were not used (or in the case of two barely used) as the basis for the collects of The Book of Common Prayer (1549 and following editions)?
The answer may easily be found by reading the medieval Collects in the Sarum Rite. They all contained what all the Reformers of the sixteenth century believed was corrupt doctrine—the petition for the saint’s intercession with God and sometimes for his protection. Take for example, the Collects for St Andrew’s and St Thomas’ Days, which literally translated are:
We humbly implore thy Majesty, O Lord, that as the blessed apostle Andrew appeared [upon earth] as a preacher and a ruler of thy Church, so he may be for us a perpetual intercessor with thee [in heaven]. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, so to rejoice in the festival of thy blessed apostle St. Thomas, that by his protection we may be assisted, and may follow the steps of his faith with devotion agreeable thereto’ through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It is important to realize that for the Reformers the question they faced and answered in the negative was not: “Do departed saints actually pray for the Church on earth, or even for particular parts of it they had known and remembered?” Rather the question to which they actually gave a strongly negative answer was: “Are we on earth justified formally in our public prayer actually soliciting their prayers for us?”
It is probably an implicit denial of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints (see Apostles’ Creed) to doubt that saints in Paradise pour out their souls to the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ and do so as filled with the Holy Spirit and with all holiness and godly fervor. We know how St Paul prayed on earth—for he has left us much information in his Epistles—and so we can only believe that he prays more comprehensively and caringly now in Paradise. And likewise do all the apostles and martyrs.
We know so little, for so very little is revealed in Holy Scripture, about the intermediate state (the period for baptized believers between death and the end of this age with the resurrection of the dead), but we can be reasonably sure that death does not eradicate from the souls of the saints their love of the brethren and therefore their concern and prayer for them as the look forward to the full redemption, the resurrection and life of the age to come. So the question is not, “Do the saints have compassion for their brethren on earth and do they pray for them?” We presume that the answer to this is “yes” and that this is not controversial.
To accept freely and gladly that the saints in Paradise engage in prayer to the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit is one thing. However, it is yet another, and a very different other, to say that the church on earth, or an individual member thereof, is justified and warranted in specifically asking for the intercession of departed saints or for putting ourselves/himself (in our context of space and time) under their patronage and care.
All agree, I think, that there is no command, no recommendation and no suggestion in the Holy Scriptures that Christian believers should either pray to departed saints or ask for the prayers and/or protection of departed saints. So any claims made from Scripture must be by inference from what seems related teaching. All agree, also I think, that the saints in Paradise are human beings and though their experience and knowledge of God is vastly increased in this holy time of waiting they remain creatures and, as such, they do not have anything like the attribute of omniscience by which to comprehend the situation in earth and to understand, and anything like the attribute of omnipotence to respond to a multitude of requests for intercessory prayer and protection. In other words, their human nature (even their being-deified human nature) still has creaturely limits.
Then there is that powerfully clear text : “There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2). As co-ordinate truths, the oneness of God and the oneness of the Mediator are here related as two fundamental truths. Further, the context is one where the apostle Paul is writing about mediation by intercession and not only by atonement, for he urges that “prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men.”
So the scripturally reasonable thing is to believe that the saints are active in their love for the whole Church, but that they do not have the capacities necessary to make them into “assisting mediators” or “listeners to specific requests for help in the creaturely realities of space and time.” Therefore, the Church on earth should not pray to them or ask for their prayer or put itself under their protection.
But what about the argument often made that goes like this: on earth we ask one another to pray for us, why is it not reasonable to ask the departed saints in Paradise to pray for us? The answer to this—as made over and over again in the sixteenth century and since—goes something like this.
To ask for the prayers of our living friends is to ask for something with which there are no obvious moral dangers. We know that despite the prayerfulness of these friends they are very much human with their weaknesses and failures and that they are the first to say they are sinners before God and man. Yet they pray for us in the saving Name of Jesus.
Asking for the prayers of saints is different. Removed from us and not seen by us (but imagined by us) we begin to idealize them and think of them as artists have presented them. The idolatrous tendencies of the human heart come into play and we tend to make them more than human with more than human powers and graces. Soon we are into the belief in the supernatural patronage and intercession of the saints (as was so widespread in the late medieval Church and may still be seen on both sides of the Mexican border with the USA today) and this has a direct effect on the sole prerogatives of the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (so that ten Ave Marias were/are said for one Pater noster).
The Reformers were wholly right to maintain that no other recognition of the blessed dead should be made in liturgy other than that which is Scriptural and primitive—thankfulness for the graces and virtues exhibited by them and prayer to the Father that we may be enabled to follow their example even as they followed Christ. Thus in The Book of Common Prayer these two themes are usually found in Collects for Saints’ Days. And this order of things has not been changed in any official revision of the BCP—cf. e.g. the 1962 Canadian with the 1549 English to see this.
It is worth recalling that the same team that produced The Book of Common Prayer also produced what became known as The Thirty-Nine Articles, wherein in Article XXII the Invocation of Saints is said to be repugnant to the Word of God written.
Finally, something to ponder: The acceptance of this Reformed Catholic teaching and liturgical practice has not been easy for those who believe that the Church of England (and thus the Anglican Churches generally) ought to follow the practice of both modern Rome and the Eastern Orthodox and invoke the saints (together with their veneration). Some have resorted and still resort (in North America) to using an extended BCP called “The Anglican Missal” or “The English Missal” to be able to invoke the saints (and say and do other things as well outside Reformed Catholicism); and in England today many in the Forward in Faith movement use the modern Roman Missal with its collects and so they pray and believe as does the Roman Church to the Saints.
It would appear possible, maybe probable, that the borderline between (a) the Reformed Catholicism of the Formularies of the Anglican Way (classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles) and (b) a “Catholicism” within Anglicanism that is on its way either to crossing the Tiber or alternatively of entering Constantinople is this very territory of the Invocation of the Saints and their Veneration via icon and image. Those who truly enter this territory in mind and heart and, importantly, regular devout practice also, are seemingly on a one way journey, which may take a long time to reach its destination; but, essentially, they are no longer looking to the Bible and the Anglican Formularies but rather to Rome or Constantinople with their Bibles and together with their written and unwritten Traditions.
As an appendix here is the Collect in the BCP for All Saints followed by the medieval Collect for the same festival:
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast granted us under one solemnity to show reverence to the merits of all the saints; Pour down upon us, we beseech thee, at the request of these many intercessors, that abundance of mercy which we so much need and desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
October 19. 2006 thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
According to The Book of Common Prayer (1662) twenty days in the Christian Year from Advent to the end of Trinity are observed in memory of certain New Testament Saints. One very interesting and important fact about the Collects for these days is that most of them are not translations of Latin originals found in the medieval and late patristic Sacramentaries. Rather, they are new creations by Archbishop Cranmer and his colleagues. In contrast, virtually all the Collects for the Sundays and major festivals of the Christian Year are translations of Latin originals from earlier times.
So the question arises: Why is it, with the exception of the Purification and Annunciation, that the Latin originals of the collects for these commemorations of saints were not used (or in the case of two barely used) as the basis for the collects of The Book of Common Prayer (1549 and following editions)?
The answer may easily be found by reading the medieval Collects in the Sarum Rite. They all contained what all the Reformers of the sixteenth century believed was corrupt doctrine—the petition for the saint’s intercession with God and sometimes for his protection. Take for example, the Collects for St Andrew’s and St Thomas’ Days, which literally translated are:
We humbly implore thy Majesty, O Lord, that as the blessed apostle Andrew appeared [upon earth] as a preacher and a ruler of thy Church, so he may be for us a perpetual intercessor with thee [in heaven]. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, so to rejoice in the festival of thy blessed apostle St. Thomas, that by his protection we may be assisted, and may follow the steps of his faith with devotion agreeable thereto’ through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It is important to realize that for the Reformers the question they faced and answered in the negative was not: “Do departed saints actually pray for the Church on earth, or even for particular parts of it they had known and remembered?” Rather the question to which they actually gave a strongly negative answer was: “Are we on earth justified formally in our public prayer actually soliciting their prayers for us?”
It is probably an implicit denial of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints (see Apostles’ Creed) to doubt that saints in Paradise pour out their souls to the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ and do so as filled with the Holy Spirit and with all holiness and godly fervor. We know how St Paul prayed on earth—for he has left us much information in his Epistles—and so we can only believe that he prays more comprehensively and caringly now in Paradise. And likewise do all the apostles and martyrs.
We know so little, for so very little is revealed in Holy Scripture, about the intermediate state (the period for baptized believers between death and the end of this age with the resurrection of the dead), but we can be reasonably sure that death does not eradicate from the souls of the saints their love of the brethren and therefore their concern and prayer for them as the look forward to the full redemption, the resurrection and life of the age to come. So the question is not, “Do the saints have compassion for their brethren on earth and do they pray for them?” We presume that the answer to this is “yes” and that this is not controversial.
To accept freely and gladly that the saints in Paradise engage in prayer to the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit is one thing. However, it is yet another, and a very different other, to say that the church on earth, or an individual member thereof, is justified and warranted in specifically asking for the intercession of departed saints or for putting ourselves/himself (in our context of space and time) under their patronage and care.
All agree, I think, that there is no command, no recommendation and no suggestion in the Holy Scriptures that Christian believers should either pray to departed saints or ask for the prayers and/or protection of departed saints. So any claims made from Scripture must be by inference from what seems related teaching. All agree, also I think, that the saints in Paradise are human beings and though their experience and knowledge of God is vastly increased in this holy time of waiting they remain creatures and, as such, they do not have anything like the attribute of omniscience by which to comprehend the situation in earth and to understand, and anything like the attribute of omnipotence to respond to a multitude of requests for intercessory prayer and protection. In other words, their human nature (even their being-deified human nature) still has creaturely limits.
Then there is that powerfully clear text : “There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2). As co-ordinate truths, the oneness of God and the oneness of the Mediator are here related as two fundamental truths. Further, the context is one where the apostle Paul is writing about mediation by intercession and not only by atonement, for he urges that “prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men.”
So the scripturally reasonable thing is to believe that the saints are active in their love for the whole Church, but that they do not have the capacities necessary to make them into “assisting mediators” or “listeners to specific requests for help in the creaturely realities of space and time.” Therefore, the Church on earth should not pray to them or ask for their prayer or put itself under their protection.
But what about the argument often made that goes like this: on earth we ask one another to pray for us, why is it not reasonable to ask the departed saints in Paradise to pray for us? The answer to this—as made over and over again in the sixteenth century and since—goes something like this.
To ask for the prayers of our living friends is to ask for something with which there are no obvious moral dangers. We know that despite the prayerfulness of these friends they are very much human with their weaknesses and failures and that they are the first to say they are sinners before God and man. Yet they pray for us in the saving Name of Jesus.
Asking for the prayers of saints is different. Removed from us and not seen by us (but imagined by us) we begin to idealize them and think of them as artists have presented them. The idolatrous tendencies of the human heart come into play and we tend to make them more than human with more than human powers and graces. Soon we are into the belief in the supernatural patronage and intercession of the saints (as was so widespread in the late medieval Church and may still be seen on both sides of the Mexican border with the USA today) and this has a direct effect on the sole prerogatives of the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (so that ten Ave Marias were/are said for one Pater noster).
The Reformers were wholly right to maintain that no other recognition of the blessed dead should be made in liturgy other than that which is Scriptural and primitive—thankfulness for the graces and virtues exhibited by them and prayer to the Father that we may be enabled to follow their example even as they followed Christ. Thus in The Book of Common Prayer these two themes are usually found in Collects for Saints’ Days. And this order of things has not been changed in any official revision of the BCP—cf. e.g. the 1962 Canadian with the 1549 English to see this.
It is worth recalling that the same team that produced The Book of Common Prayer also produced what became known as The Thirty-Nine Articles, wherein in Article XXII the Invocation of Saints is said to be repugnant to the Word of God written.
Finally, something to ponder: The acceptance of this Reformed Catholic teaching and liturgical practice has not been easy for those who believe that the Church of England (and thus the Anglican Churches generally) ought to follow the practice of both modern Rome and the Eastern Orthodox and invoke the saints (together with their veneration). Some have resorted and still resort (in North America) to using an extended BCP called “The Anglican Missal” or “The English Missal” to be able to invoke the saints (and say and do other things as well outside Reformed Catholicism); and in England today many in the Forward in Faith movement use the modern Roman Missal with its collects and so they pray and believe as does the Roman Church to the Saints.
It would appear possible, maybe probable, that the borderline between (a) the Reformed Catholicism of the Formularies of the Anglican Way (classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles) and (b) a “Catholicism” within Anglicanism that is on its way either to crossing the Tiber or alternatively of entering Constantinople is this very territory of the Invocation of the Saints and their Veneration via icon and image. Those who truly enter this territory in mind and heart and, importantly, regular devout practice also, are seemingly on a one way journey, which may take a long time to reach its destination; but, essentially, they are no longer looking to the Bible and the Anglican Formularies but rather to Rome or Constantinople with their Bibles and together with their written and unwritten Traditions.
As an appendix here is the Collect in the BCP for All Saints followed by the medieval Collect for the same festival:
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast granted us under one solemnity to show reverence to the merits of all the saints; Pour down upon us, we beseech thee, at the request of these many intercessors, that abundance of mercy which we so much need and desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
October 19. 2006 thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Litmus Test of Orthodoxy: The Ordination of Women as Presbyters?
A discussion starter
For some Anglican groups in the USA/Canada the fact of NOT ordaining women and having a male-only Presbyterate is the primary claim to orthodoxy of doctrine and provision of Sacraments that are truly “outward signs of inward grace.”
This doctrinal commitment seems (to some observers) to come before not only the acceptance of the patristic dogma of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ but also the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God written.
How can we understand and assess this situation, which appears to intensify the more that the majority groups of Anglicans vote for and implement the ordination of women as presbyters?
If we look back to the 1970s in the history of The Episcopal Church, it was because this Church approved the ordination of women in 1976, and then actually did ordinations of women, that led to the schism of 1977 and in turn led to the St Louis Congress, the writing of The St Louis Affirmation of Faith (a very anglo-catholic document) and the creation of The Continuing Anglican Church (which in 1977 still looked for communion with the See of Canterbury). As most people know this Continuing Church has regrettably sub-divided (APCK, ACC, ACA etc.) and has been joined by parallel groups of “Extra Mural Anglicans” who refuse to ordain women and who use the BCP 1928 (or the Anglican Missal).
The ordaining of women was the basic reason for the walk-out in 1977 and for most of those in the Continuing Movement from 1977 the ordaining of women is still the reason why they will not join with other “extra-mural” groups (who have left the ECUSA because of matters of “leadership” or sexuality issues).
Are we facing just old-fashioned bigotry or prejudice here from these old-time Episcopalians? Is it that they cannot even imagine a woman covered in vestments and celebrating at the altar? A rather significant point to be made here is that virtually all the continuing Anglicans in their daily lives show in practical ways that they believe in the real equality of male and female in terms of rights, opportunities, salaries and so on. Male priests go to professional women for a variety of reasons, medical to financial and submit to their judgements; and within the churches women take on a lot of responsibility, not least in financing the male priests! In fact the wives of priests often earn far more than do their husbands!
Apparently then, all or most of the Continuers believe in full equality of the sexes except in terms of access to the Sacred Ministry, where, it is claimed, because Christ was male and because Christ ordained only male apostles (in a patriarchal society long ago), they believe that God wants and calls only males (even males who appear sometimes to be inferior to women in ability, sensitivity, knowledge of sacred things, leadership potential, and so on).
When I talk to those who (a) are strongly committed to the doctrine that only men may be ordained and (b) give the impression that this is for them the first doctrine of the Faith and of the Church, I try, if possible, to suggest to them that they change their way of guarding their doctrine and of explaining their position—not abandoning it but giving it a new look.
Instead of stating by word and bodily gestures that the ordination of only men is the first doctrine, let them change their approach and find an interesting and persuasive way of indicating that, at this time in the history of the Church within western culture, how one approaches the innovation of the ordination of women is a kind of litmus test of biblical and patristic orthodoxy. Let me explain.
We live in a culture of human rights, one of which is the right to self-fulfillment, and within this culture it is reasonable, and to be expected, that people assume that women have a right to be ordained, especially if some women feel that this is what Deity is calling them to be and do and at the same time they are gifted females. (And we know that this culture of rights is the context in which changing the Church’s doctrine and practice became possible in the 1970s and has done much to sustain it since—see my Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004, from www.anglicanmarketplace.com). To say that human rights have absolutely no place in the relation of a sinner—even a forgiven and being sanctified sinner—to God, is to say a strong word against the culture and for God. To move on and to say that the right relation of each of us to God is by grace, and by grace alone, in Chrjst Jesus and by the Holy Spirit, is to say another strong word both against the culture and the self-centered reality of human nature, and for God. Then to move on yet farther and say that the ordained Ministry is by Christ’s command restricted to such men as he, the Lord of the Church calls, and has nothing to do with abilities or feelings or rights claimed by women or men, is to say yet a further strong word against the culture and for God. And, to carry on and to state—against contemporary ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada doctrine—that the call to ordination is NOT, repeat “Not”, contained in the “baptismal covenant” and thus NOT given in embryo to all the baptized, but is a totally separate call from the Lord of the Church given individually to a small minority of baptized men, is to say a further word against the culture and for God.
I suggest that this kind of approach is “the litmus test” approach and it can be well integrated into a right judgment of what is the hierarchy of truth in the Christian religion. That is, we can hold that the basic doctrines of God the Holy Trinity, the Creation of the cosmos by God, the Incarnation of the Son to be One Person made known in two natures and his death, resurrection, exaltation and second coming, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the existence of the holy Catholic Church, and the final judgment after the general resurrection of the dead, and so on, and we can proclaim that all these come before the Ministry and ordination into it.
So it can be said that at this time, in this place and within this culture, whether or not the Church ordains women (as against deploying them in Christ’s name utilizing the gifts sent to them from heaven) is at least a major if not the litmus test of whether or not the Church is ready to submit to Christ the Lord. Of course to use this litmus test in the West today in the way suggested above requires of those who use it great humility and meekness so that they are perceived truly as speaking the truth in love. To deploy it arrogantly would be to do grave harm to souls. A final word—in another place at this time (e.g., Muslim cultures) the litmus test will probably be something very different, even though the hierarchy of truth will be constant.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon October 18, 2006
For some Anglican groups in the USA/Canada the fact of NOT ordaining women and having a male-only Presbyterate is the primary claim to orthodoxy of doctrine and provision of Sacraments that are truly “outward signs of inward grace.”
This doctrinal commitment seems (to some observers) to come before not only the acceptance of the patristic dogma of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ but also the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God written.
How can we understand and assess this situation, which appears to intensify the more that the majority groups of Anglicans vote for and implement the ordination of women as presbyters?
If we look back to the 1970s in the history of The Episcopal Church, it was because this Church approved the ordination of women in 1976, and then actually did ordinations of women, that led to the schism of 1977 and in turn led to the St Louis Congress, the writing of The St Louis Affirmation of Faith (a very anglo-catholic document) and the creation of The Continuing Anglican Church (which in 1977 still looked for communion with the See of Canterbury). As most people know this Continuing Church has regrettably sub-divided (APCK, ACC, ACA etc.) and has been joined by parallel groups of “Extra Mural Anglicans” who refuse to ordain women and who use the BCP 1928 (or the Anglican Missal).
The ordaining of women was the basic reason for the walk-out in 1977 and for most of those in the Continuing Movement from 1977 the ordaining of women is still the reason why they will not join with other “extra-mural” groups (who have left the ECUSA because of matters of “leadership” or sexuality issues).
Are we facing just old-fashioned bigotry or prejudice here from these old-time Episcopalians? Is it that they cannot even imagine a woman covered in vestments and celebrating at the altar? A rather significant point to be made here is that virtually all the continuing Anglicans in their daily lives show in practical ways that they believe in the real equality of male and female in terms of rights, opportunities, salaries and so on. Male priests go to professional women for a variety of reasons, medical to financial and submit to their judgements; and within the churches women take on a lot of responsibility, not least in financing the male priests! In fact the wives of priests often earn far more than do their husbands!
Apparently then, all or most of the Continuers believe in full equality of the sexes except in terms of access to the Sacred Ministry, where, it is claimed, because Christ was male and because Christ ordained only male apostles (in a patriarchal society long ago), they believe that God wants and calls only males (even males who appear sometimes to be inferior to women in ability, sensitivity, knowledge of sacred things, leadership potential, and so on).
When I talk to those who (a) are strongly committed to the doctrine that only men may be ordained and (b) give the impression that this is for them the first doctrine of the Faith and of the Church, I try, if possible, to suggest to them that they change their way of guarding their doctrine and of explaining their position—not abandoning it but giving it a new look.
Instead of stating by word and bodily gestures that the ordination of only men is the first doctrine, let them change their approach and find an interesting and persuasive way of indicating that, at this time in the history of the Church within western culture, how one approaches the innovation of the ordination of women is a kind of litmus test of biblical and patristic orthodoxy. Let me explain.
We live in a culture of human rights, one of which is the right to self-fulfillment, and within this culture it is reasonable, and to be expected, that people assume that women have a right to be ordained, especially if some women feel that this is what Deity is calling them to be and do and at the same time they are gifted females. (And we know that this culture of rights is the context in which changing the Church’s doctrine and practice became possible in the 1970s and has done much to sustain it since—see my Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004, from www.anglicanmarketplace.com). To say that human rights have absolutely no place in the relation of a sinner—even a forgiven and being sanctified sinner—to God, is to say a strong word against the culture and for God. To move on and to say that the right relation of each of us to God is by grace, and by grace alone, in Chrjst Jesus and by the Holy Spirit, is to say another strong word both against the culture and the self-centered reality of human nature, and for God. Then to move on yet farther and say that the ordained Ministry is by Christ’s command restricted to such men as he, the Lord of the Church calls, and has nothing to do with abilities or feelings or rights claimed by women or men, is to say yet a further strong word against the culture and for God. And, to carry on and to state—against contemporary ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada doctrine—that the call to ordination is NOT, repeat “Not”, contained in the “baptismal covenant” and thus NOT given in embryo to all the baptized, but is a totally separate call from the Lord of the Church given individually to a small minority of baptized men, is to say a further word against the culture and for God.
I suggest that this kind of approach is “the litmus test” approach and it can be well integrated into a right judgment of what is the hierarchy of truth in the Christian religion. That is, we can hold that the basic doctrines of God the Holy Trinity, the Creation of the cosmos by God, the Incarnation of the Son to be One Person made known in two natures and his death, resurrection, exaltation and second coming, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the existence of the holy Catholic Church, and the final judgment after the general resurrection of the dead, and so on, and we can proclaim that all these come before the Ministry and ordination into it.
So it can be said that at this time, in this place and within this culture, whether or not the Church ordains women (as against deploying them in Christ’s name utilizing the gifts sent to them from heaven) is at least a major if not the litmus test of whether or not the Church is ready to submit to Christ the Lord. Of course to use this litmus test in the West today in the way suggested above requires of those who use it great humility and meekness so that they are perceived truly as speaking the truth in love. To deploy it arrogantly would be to do grave harm to souls. A final word—in another place at this time (e.g., Muslim cultures) the litmus test will probably be something very different, even though the hierarchy of truth will be constant.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon October 18, 2006
Monday, October 16, 2006
The Anglican Doctrine of Reception--does it help?
Women’s Ordination—why are some folks so much against and others so much for it. And does the Anglican doctrine of Reception help?
When I urge members of the (Anglo-Catholic) Continuing Churches (ACC, ACA, APCK etc.) to be involved with Anglicans within Provinces which are part of the Anglican Communion of Churches, the immediate response virtually on all occasions is: “But they ordain women or are in communion with those who ordain women!”
When I urge members of (especially Western) Provinces of the Anglican Communion to go slow on either the ordination of women as priests or consecration as bishops (and really take seriously the supposed Anglican Doctrine of Reception set forth by The Lambeth Conference of 1988, The Grindrod Report of 1988 and The Eames’ Commission of 1996) they insist that the credibility of the Gospel depends on there being no discrimination of any kind in the Church.
Right now in the Church of England one can get a taste of the emotion in this difference of mindset in the build-up to the future voting in General Synod as to whether women will be allowed by canon law to be consecrated bishops. But it is also felt very strongly in the USA on the one side by the traditional Continuers for whom “no female priest at the altar” seems to be a primary article of faith. and, on the other side, by the supporters of the new female Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA for whom “the female priest at the altar” is absolutely required integrity!
None of the Creeds refers to ordination and so we can safely say that in the hierarchy of truths arising from the Gospel, the matter of ordination is not in the “top ten.” In the Creeds we find such basic doctrines as that of the Holy Trinity; the Creation of the world and of man; the Incarnation of the Second Person and his redeeming work on this earth for human beings; his death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation and second coming; the work of the Holy Spirit and the existence of the One Church of God; and the final judgment, with the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Any doctrine of ordination is to be a sub heading, as it were, under the doctrine of the Church, as also are the Sacraments. This does not mean that it is not important but, rather, that it is not first or second, as it were, in the hierarchy of truths—as they were perceived by the Church which came after the apostolic age.
So at least in theory, those who wholly reject the ordination of women and those who wholly affirm it, can agree upon—as Christians—a whole set, a veritable hierarchy of absolutely fundamental truths, if and only if, of course, they accept the Creed as a true summary of biblical doctrine to be believed. Thus, as Anglican leaders and published Anglican reports have long insisted and hope for, the two sides can enjoy a basic communion in Christ, even if their eucharistic communion is impaired. After all they were all baptized in the Triune Name!
Each side claims to be rightly reading and interpreting Scripture and coming to a conclusion that is not only allowed, but also required, by Scripture, that is by the will of God made clear in Scripture. And I, for one, do believe that, in general, there is real sincerity on each side, for usually each side has a mindset or frame of reference which includes the premises which tend to move towards the conclusion for which each side stands. Perhaps the reason why it sometimes seems as if the question of the ordination of women appears to be the primary truth—and above the classic hierarchy of truths in the Creed—is that it is (as they say in other discourse) “the presenting problem.” It is the focal point where everything that one believes about God, the world, human beings and ministry comes together at this point for religion in the history of culture and society (especially in the West).
Associated usually but not inevitably with the male-only ordained ministry are such things as (a) the reading of the Bible in its traditional sense which means accepting that patriarchy or male headship is assumed and taught from beginning to end; (b) the addressing of God in the way used by Jesus and his Apostles (e.g., as Father, Lord, and King); (c) translating the Bible in an essentially literal way as in the KJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, etc.; (d) the dominance of men in the governing and polity of the Church; (e) opposition to abortion on demand or as a form of birth control, and (f) opposition to the ordaining of active homosexual persons and blessing of same-sex couples.
Associated usually but not inevitably with the welcoming of women into holy Orders in Anglican Provinces in the West are such things as (a) the reading of the Bible through a particular lens (e.g., Galatians 3:28) by means of which the patriarchal dominance is not only reduced but negated; (b) the addressing and describing of God through (what are in the text of the Bible similes) new metaphors—e.g. mother and parent—and the avoiding of the pronoun “he” as much as possible; (c) the use of translations of the Bible like the NRSV which aim to remove or minimize the supposed patriarchal, sexist and androcentric nouns and pronouns; (d) the governing of the church locally and nationally by mixed bodies of women and men; (e) commitment to women’s rights including “reproductive rights;” and (d) support for the full rights of homosexual, lesbian and bi-sexual persons, and other minorities, in society and the churches.
Though this does not usually occur in Evangelicalism, it seems to be the case that in the mainline denominations, including the ECUSA, there is usually a pattern based upon the rejection of the traditional reading of the order within creation (man, as male and female, made in God’s image, where the male is first is order but both are of equal dignity), and this leads to major changes across a broad front in practical doctrines – e.g., the purpose of holy matrimony, the ready acceptance of divorce and remarriage, the use of artificial birth control, the ordination of women, the blessing of same-sex couples and so on. And what all these innovations or changes could be said to have in common is the rejection of what has been long understood to be the order which the Creator placed within the creation itself—see for more details of this thesis with much illustration in my Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004, from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or 1-800-727-1928.
Concerning the ordaining and consecrating of women, this is officially subject in Anglican Provinces to the doctrine and process of reception (see further, Peter Toon, Reforming Forwards? The Process of Reception and the Consecration of Women as Bishops, The Latimer Trust, London, www.latimertrust.org ) If we take this doctrine at face-value it states that the decision of a provincial synod to allow the ordination of women is to be “received” but not received in the usual sense of the word. It is to be received in the sense of received in order to test and discern whether or not it is of God and good for the province. So despite the triumphalism of many advocates of female ordination in the West, the innovation is being tested and the final answer could be (difficult to believe right now!) NO. In fact, since it is in the process of being tested, the general attitude towards it should be one of caution not of powerful advocacy (as we see right now in the C of E by not a few bishops and senior clergy pressing for women to be made bishops).
But generally speaking, the Anglican Family seems to be agreed that since it appears that Scripture and Tradition cannot, or do not, or will not, adjudicate clearly, or if they do we are not prepared to listen, then this innovation is subject to the test of Experience according to the guidance of the Lambeth Conference.
The reason why some folks are so much against or so much for the ordination of women is one and the same. Each side sees this as the supreme test case as to determining such basic questions as: Who is God? What is the Gospel? And Where do I find salvation? Yet they all claim to believe the Creed wherein are declared primary doctrines.
Caught in the middle are most Anglicans who are prepared to go with the flow, wherever that flow does, and who meanwhile do not want to talk about or even hear much about the subject!
If and when the debate over same-sex blessings and ordaining active homosexual persons cools down, it may well be that the debate over the ordaining of women will revive—perhaps in the Global South—and then the Anglican doctrine of Reception will be truly put to the test, for it is possible that the majority of Primates have not yet realized that the Anglican doctrine of Reception is a way of avoiding making decisions on the basis of Scripture and Tradition, using sanctified reason! It is a way of letting Experience decide, which is setting a dangerous precedent!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
When I urge members of the (Anglo-Catholic) Continuing Churches (ACC, ACA, APCK etc.) to be involved with Anglicans within Provinces which are part of the Anglican Communion of Churches, the immediate response virtually on all occasions is: “But they ordain women or are in communion with those who ordain women!”
When I urge members of (especially Western) Provinces of the Anglican Communion to go slow on either the ordination of women as priests or consecration as bishops (and really take seriously the supposed Anglican Doctrine of Reception set forth by The Lambeth Conference of 1988, The Grindrod Report of 1988 and The Eames’ Commission of 1996) they insist that the credibility of the Gospel depends on there being no discrimination of any kind in the Church.
Right now in the Church of England one can get a taste of the emotion in this difference of mindset in the build-up to the future voting in General Synod as to whether women will be allowed by canon law to be consecrated bishops. But it is also felt very strongly in the USA on the one side by the traditional Continuers for whom “no female priest at the altar” seems to be a primary article of faith. and, on the other side, by the supporters of the new female Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA for whom “the female priest at the altar” is absolutely required integrity!
None of the Creeds refers to ordination and so we can safely say that in the hierarchy of truths arising from the Gospel, the matter of ordination is not in the “top ten.” In the Creeds we find such basic doctrines as that of the Holy Trinity; the Creation of the world and of man; the Incarnation of the Second Person and his redeeming work on this earth for human beings; his death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation and second coming; the work of the Holy Spirit and the existence of the One Church of God; and the final judgment, with the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Any doctrine of ordination is to be a sub heading, as it were, under the doctrine of the Church, as also are the Sacraments. This does not mean that it is not important but, rather, that it is not first or second, as it were, in the hierarchy of truths—as they were perceived by the Church which came after the apostolic age.
So at least in theory, those who wholly reject the ordination of women and those who wholly affirm it, can agree upon—as Christians—a whole set, a veritable hierarchy of absolutely fundamental truths, if and only if, of course, they accept the Creed as a true summary of biblical doctrine to be believed. Thus, as Anglican leaders and published Anglican reports have long insisted and hope for, the two sides can enjoy a basic communion in Christ, even if their eucharistic communion is impaired. After all they were all baptized in the Triune Name!
Each side claims to be rightly reading and interpreting Scripture and coming to a conclusion that is not only allowed, but also required, by Scripture, that is by the will of God made clear in Scripture. And I, for one, do believe that, in general, there is real sincerity on each side, for usually each side has a mindset or frame of reference which includes the premises which tend to move towards the conclusion for which each side stands. Perhaps the reason why it sometimes seems as if the question of the ordination of women appears to be the primary truth—and above the classic hierarchy of truths in the Creed—is that it is (as they say in other discourse) “the presenting problem.” It is the focal point where everything that one believes about God, the world, human beings and ministry comes together at this point for religion in the history of culture and society (especially in the West).
Associated usually but not inevitably with the male-only ordained ministry are such things as (a) the reading of the Bible in its traditional sense which means accepting that patriarchy or male headship is assumed and taught from beginning to end; (b) the addressing of God in the way used by Jesus and his Apostles (e.g., as Father, Lord, and King); (c) translating the Bible in an essentially literal way as in the KJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, etc.; (d) the dominance of men in the governing and polity of the Church; (e) opposition to abortion on demand or as a form of birth control, and (f) opposition to the ordaining of active homosexual persons and blessing of same-sex couples.
Associated usually but not inevitably with the welcoming of women into holy Orders in Anglican Provinces in the West are such things as (a) the reading of the Bible through a particular lens (e.g., Galatians 3:28) by means of which the patriarchal dominance is not only reduced but negated; (b) the addressing and describing of God through (what are in the text of the Bible similes) new metaphors—e.g. mother and parent—and the avoiding of the pronoun “he” as much as possible; (c) the use of translations of the Bible like the NRSV which aim to remove or minimize the supposed patriarchal, sexist and androcentric nouns and pronouns; (d) the governing of the church locally and nationally by mixed bodies of women and men; (e) commitment to women’s rights including “reproductive rights;” and (d) support for the full rights of homosexual, lesbian and bi-sexual persons, and other minorities, in society and the churches.
Though this does not usually occur in Evangelicalism, it seems to be the case that in the mainline denominations, including the ECUSA, there is usually a pattern based upon the rejection of the traditional reading of the order within creation (man, as male and female, made in God’s image, where the male is first is order but both are of equal dignity), and this leads to major changes across a broad front in practical doctrines – e.g., the purpose of holy matrimony, the ready acceptance of divorce and remarriage, the use of artificial birth control, the ordination of women, the blessing of same-sex couples and so on. And what all these innovations or changes could be said to have in common is the rejection of what has been long understood to be the order which the Creator placed within the creation itself—see for more details of this thesis with much illustration in my Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004, from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or 1-800-727-1928.
Concerning the ordaining and consecrating of women, this is officially subject in Anglican Provinces to the doctrine and process of reception (see further, Peter Toon, Reforming Forwards? The Process of Reception and the Consecration of Women as Bishops, The Latimer Trust, London, www.latimertrust.org ) If we take this doctrine at face-value it states that the decision of a provincial synod to allow the ordination of women is to be “received” but not received in the usual sense of the word. It is to be received in the sense of received in order to test and discern whether or not it is of God and good for the province. So despite the triumphalism of many advocates of female ordination in the West, the innovation is being tested and the final answer could be (difficult to believe right now!) NO. In fact, since it is in the process of being tested, the general attitude towards it should be one of caution not of powerful advocacy (as we see right now in the C of E by not a few bishops and senior clergy pressing for women to be made bishops).
But generally speaking, the Anglican Family seems to be agreed that since it appears that Scripture and Tradition cannot, or do not, or will not, adjudicate clearly, or if they do we are not prepared to listen, then this innovation is subject to the test of Experience according to the guidance of the Lambeth Conference.
The reason why some folks are so much against or so much for the ordination of women is one and the same. Each side sees this as the supreme test case as to determining such basic questions as: Who is God? What is the Gospel? And Where do I find salvation? Yet they all claim to believe the Creed wherein are declared primary doctrines.
Caught in the middle are most Anglicans who are prepared to go with the flow, wherever that flow does, and who meanwhile do not want to talk about or even hear much about the subject!
If and when the debate over same-sex blessings and ordaining active homosexual persons cools down, it may well be that the debate over the ordaining of women will revive—perhaps in the Global South—and then the Anglican doctrine of Reception will be truly put to the test, for it is possible that the majority of Primates have not yet realized that the Anglican doctrine of Reception is a way of avoiding making decisions on the basis of Scripture and Tradition, using sanctified reason! It is a way of letting Experience decide, which is setting a dangerous precedent!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
It’s Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered
From the New York Times, Oct 15, 2006:
By SAM ROBERTS
Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.
The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.
The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.
“It just changes the social weight of marriage in the economy, in the work force, in sales of homes and rentals, and who manufacturers advertise to,” said Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “It certainly challenges the way we set up our work policies.”
While the number of single young adults and elderly widows are both growing, Professor Coontz said, “we have an anachronistic view as to what extent you can use marriage to organize the distribution and redistribution of benefits.”
Couples decide to live together for many reasons, but real estate can be as compelling as romance.
“Owning three toothbrushes and finding that they are always at the wrong house when you are getting ready to go to bed wears on you,” said Amanda Hawn, a 28-year-old writer who set up housekeeping near San Francisco with her boyfriend, Nate Larsen, a real estate analyst, after shuttling between his apartment and one she shared with a friend. “Moving in together has simplified life,” Ms. Hawn said.
The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples. In all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried. (One in 20 households consisted of people living alone).
And the numbers of unmarried couples are growing. Since 2000, those identifying themselves as unmarried opposite-sex couples rose by about 14 percent, male couples by 24 percent and female couples by 12 percent.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said gay couples were undercounted because many gay people were reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation. But he said that inhibition seemed to be fading.
“I would say the increase is due to people feeling more comfortable disclosing that they are gay or lesbian and living with a partner,” he said.
The survey did not ask about sexual orientation, but its questionnaire was designed to distinguish partners from roommates. A partner was defined as “an adult who is unrelated to the householder, but shares living quarters and has a close personal relationship with the householder.”
Some of the biggest gains in unmarried couples were recorded in unexpected places. In the rural Midwest, the number of households made up of male partners rose 77 percent since 2000.
The survey revealed wide disparities in household composition by place. The proportion of married couples ranged from more than 69 percent in Utah County, Utah, which includes Provo, to 26 percent in Manhattan, which has a smaller share of married couples than almost anyplace in the country. But Manhattan registered a 1.2 percent increase in married couples since 2000, in contrast to the rest of New York City and many other places.
Among counties, the highest proportion of unmarried opposite-sex partners was in Mendocino, Calif., where they made up nearly 11 percent of all households.
The highest share of male couples was in San Francisco, where, according to the census, they accounted for nearly 2 percent of all households. In Manhattan, they made up 1 percent of households. Hampshire County, Mass., home to Northampton, had the highest proportion of female couples, at 1.7 percent. Some of the highest numbers of unmarried couples were recorded in the South, which as defined by the census, has the largest population of any region.
David Blankenhorn, president of the marriage advocacy group the Institute for American Values, said married couples had become a minority largely because of the growing number of households made up of people who planned to marry or who used to be married.
Steve Watters, the director of young adults for Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group, said that the trend of fewer married couples was more a reflection of delaying marriage than rejection of it.
“It does show that a lot of people are experimenting with alternatives before they get there,” Mr. Watters said. “The biggest concern is that those who still aspire to marriage are going to find fewer models. They’re also finding they’ve gotten so good at being single it’s hard to be at one with another person.”
But Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, said her research — unaffiliated with the Census Bureau — found that the desire for strong family bonds, and especially marriage, was constant.
“Even cohabiting young adults tell us that they are doing so because it would be unwise to marry without first living together in a society marked by high levels of divorce,” Ms. Smock said.
A number of couples interviewed agreed that cohabiting was akin to taking a test drive and, given the scarcity of affordable apartments and homes, also a matter of convenience. Some said that pregnancy was the only thing that would prompt them to make a legal commitment soon. Others said they never intended to marry. A few of those couples said they were inspired by solidarity with gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry in most states.
Jennifer Lynch, a 28-year-old stage manager in New York, said she had lived on the Lower East Side with her boyfriend, who is 37 and divorced, for most of the five years they have been a couple.
“Cohabitating is our choice, and we have no intention to be married,” Ms. Lynch said. “There is little difference between what we do and what married people do. We love each other, exist together, all of our decisions are based upon each other. Everyone we care about knows this.”
If anything, she added, “not having the false security of wedding rings makes us work even a little harder.”
With more competition from other ways of living, the proportion of married couples has been shrinking for decades. In 1930, they accounted for about 84 percent of households. By 1990 the proportion of married couples had declined to about 56 percent.
Married couples have not been a majority of households headed by adults younger than 25 since the 1970’s, but among those aged 25 to 34 the proportion slipped below 50 percent for the first time within the past five years. (Among Americans aged 35 to 64, married couples still make up a majority of all households.)
“It’s partially fueled by women in the work force; they don’t necessarily have to marry to be economically secure,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College of the City University of New York, who conducted the census analysis for The New York Times. “You used to get married to have sex. Now one of the major reasons to get married is to have children, and the attractiveness of having children has declined for many people because of the cost.”
William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, attributed the accelerated trend to the lifestyles of baby boomers.
“It’s the legacy of the boomers that have finally caused this tipping point,” Dr. Frey said. “Certainly later generations have followed in boomer footsteps, with high levels of living together before marriage, and more flexible lifestyles. But the boomers were the trailblazers, once again, rebelling against a norm their parents epitomized.
“This would seem to close the book on the Ozzie and Harriet era that characterized much of the last century,” he said.
By SAM ROBERTS
Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.
The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.
The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.
“It just changes the social weight of marriage in the economy, in the work force, in sales of homes and rentals, and who manufacturers advertise to,” said Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “It certainly challenges the way we set up our work policies.”
While the number of single young adults and elderly widows are both growing, Professor Coontz said, “we have an anachronistic view as to what extent you can use marriage to organize the distribution and redistribution of benefits.”
Couples decide to live together for many reasons, but real estate can be as compelling as romance.
“Owning three toothbrushes and finding that they are always at the wrong house when you are getting ready to go to bed wears on you,” said Amanda Hawn, a 28-year-old writer who set up housekeeping near San Francisco with her boyfriend, Nate Larsen, a real estate analyst, after shuttling between his apartment and one she shared with a friend. “Moving in together has simplified life,” Ms. Hawn said.
The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples. In all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried. (One in 20 households consisted of people living alone).
And the numbers of unmarried couples are growing. Since 2000, those identifying themselves as unmarried opposite-sex couples rose by about 14 percent, male couples by 24 percent and female couples by 12 percent.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said gay couples were undercounted because many gay people were reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation. But he said that inhibition seemed to be fading.
“I would say the increase is due to people feeling more comfortable disclosing that they are gay or lesbian and living with a partner,” he said.
The survey did not ask about sexual orientation, but its questionnaire was designed to distinguish partners from roommates. A partner was defined as “an adult who is unrelated to the householder, but shares living quarters and has a close personal relationship with the householder.”
Some of the biggest gains in unmarried couples were recorded in unexpected places. In the rural Midwest, the number of households made up of male partners rose 77 percent since 2000.
The survey revealed wide disparities in household composition by place. The proportion of married couples ranged from more than 69 percent in Utah County, Utah, which includes Provo, to 26 percent in Manhattan, which has a smaller share of married couples than almost anyplace in the country. But Manhattan registered a 1.2 percent increase in married couples since 2000, in contrast to the rest of New York City and many other places.
Among counties, the highest proportion of unmarried opposite-sex partners was in Mendocino, Calif., where they made up nearly 11 percent of all households.
The highest share of male couples was in San Francisco, where, according to the census, they accounted for nearly 2 percent of all households. In Manhattan, they made up 1 percent of households. Hampshire County, Mass., home to Northampton, had the highest proportion of female couples, at 1.7 percent. Some of the highest numbers of unmarried couples were recorded in the South, which as defined by the census, has the largest population of any region.
David Blankenhorn, president of the marriage advocacy group the Institute for American Values, said married couples had become a minority largely because of the growing number of households made up of people who planned to marry or who used to be married.
Steve Watters, the director of young adults for Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group, said that the trend of fewer married couples was more a reflection of delaying marriage than rejection of it.
“It does show that a lot of people are experimenting with alternatives before they get there,” Mr. Watters said. “The biggest concern is that those who still aspire to marriage are going to find fewer models. They’re also finding they’ve gotten so good at being single it’s hard to be at one with another person.”
But Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, said her research — unaffiliated with the Census Bureau — found that the desire for strong family bonds, and especially marriage, was constant.
“Even cohabiting young adults tell us that they are doing so because it would be unwise to marry without first living together in a society marked by high levels of divorce,” Ms. Smock said.
A number of couples interviewed agreed that cohabiting was akin to taking a test drive and, given the scarcity of affordable apartments and homes, also a matter of convenience. Some said that pregnancy was the only thing that would prompt them to make a legal commitment soon. Others said they never intended to marry. A few of those couples said they were inspired by solidarity with gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry in most states.
Jennifer Lynch, a 28-year-old stage manager in New York, said she had lived on the Lower East Side with her boyfriend, who is 37 and divorced, for most of the five years they have been a couple.
“Cohabitating is our choice, and we have no intention to be married,” Ms. Lynch said. “There is little difference between what we do and what married people do. We love each other, exist together, all of our decisions are based upon each other. Everyone we care about knows this.”
If anything, she added, “not having the false security of wedding rings makes us work even a little harder.”
With more competition from other ways of living, the proportion of married couples has been shrinking for decades. In 1930, they accounted for about 84 percent of households. By 1990 the proportion of married couples had declined to about 56 percent.
Married couples have not been a majority of households headed by adults younger than 25 since the 1970’s, but among those aged 25 to 34 the proportion slipped below 50 percent for the first time within the past five years. (Among Americans aged 35 to 64, married couples still make up a majority of all households.)
“It’s partially fueled by women in the work force; they don’t necessarily have to marry to be economically secure,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College of the City University of New York, who conducted the census analysis for The New York Times. “You used to get married to have sex. Now one of the major reasons to get married is to have children, and the attractiveness of having children has declined for many people because of the cost.”
William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, attributed the accelerated trend to the lifestyles of baby boomers.
“It’s the legacy of the boomers that have finally caused this tipping point,” Dr. Frey said. “Certainly later generations have followed in boomer footsteps, with high levels of living together before marriage, and more flexible lifestyles. But the boomers were the trailblazers, once again, rebelling against a norm their parents epitomized.
“This would seem to close the book on the Ozzie and Harriet era that characterized much of the last century,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)