A reflection by Dr Peter Toon arising from the announcement of four more bishops for CANA in the USA.
Who would have thought that when Common Cause—a loose affiliation of jurisdictions, groups, networks and congregations sharing a common view about the infidelity of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada and the need to be affiliated with the Global South—was founded recently, that in late 2007 its partners would have more bishops as a total than have most provinces of the global Anglican Communion? Amazing, and, at the same time, deeply troubling to thinking souls.
And who would have thought that several African Provinces of the Anglican Communion would have consecrated a growing number of bishops to serve their own “colonial” interests (in new networks, dioceses and convocations) in the USA and Canada before the Lambeth Conference of July 2008? Again, amazing and deeply troubling, bearing m mind that those who evangelized Africa from the C of E were very slow in calling for bishops for the converts and when they came bishops were few!.
And, further, who would have thought that this planting of new networks, dioceses and convocations by different Provinces actually in practice sets supposed “brother” against “brother” in the competition for sheep and converts in North America, for there is no agreed areas for mission by the sending Provinces and it appears to be a free for all? Once more, amazing and profoundly troubling, that the ancient principle of territoriality has been ditched so quickly without agreement on what replaces it..
Finally—and this is very important—who would have thought that in America, “the land of the free and the brave,” where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a republic with democracy is the name of the game, Anglicans would allow their pastoral and spiritual oversight to be decided by secret meetings of bishops assembled as hierarchies in foreign lands?
This last point deserves more unpacking and comment—and I write as one not born in the USS but who has tried to understand in depth its Polity, which I admire.
Let us recall that the 13 colonies were under the Bishop of London until Independence and there were no local bishops at all in America only commissaries (who were priests).
Let us also remember that when eventually the new Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA got its own bishops it was by a slow and painful process for the American Episcopate was established only through tribulation.
Let us also hold in mind that during and after the Civil War PECUSA stayed together despite many occasions for separation and schism.
And, most significantly for this reflection, let us note that the polity of the PECUSA was very different from that of the Church of England, being loosely based on the new political polity of the USA—the Congress in particular. This meant that the House of Bishops of PECUSA had limited authority—for while bishops had the final decision on who were ordained priests and deacons, the whole Convention of the diocese and the whole General Convention of laity, clergy and bishops decided who would be a bishop for a diocese and within the National Church. It was by election through voting and was out in the open. TEC retains this Polity (which can be abused as can all human activities) and it is something that other Provinces of the Anglican Communion still find hard to appreciate (not least the Global South) for with them the House of Bishops has the right to act decisively in a whole set of matters without the consent of the clergy and laity in Synod.
Now let us ask another pertinent question:
Who is deciding the number, the names and the mission of the growing number of bishops being consecrated by overseas provinces to serve North American Anglicans? Is it American Anglicans assembled in due order and voting in a godly and orderly manner as they did in 1789 and following?
No!
Secret meetings of the whole or parts of the Houses of Bishops in Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda are deciding who shall be bishops for the groups of seceders from TEC and ACC in North America. Further, there appears to be little or no consultation or godly cooperation between these separate House of Bishops as to specific strategy and plans. The result is—at least the impression of—chaos and dysfunctionality in the Anglican Way of those in North America who protest against the infidelity of TEC and ACC and have become seceders or extra-mural Anglicans.
And all this raises yet another pressing question:
How can such a beginning lead to a genuine united, biblically-based truly Anglican Province in North America to replace ACC & TEC? The answer is, of course, the gracious providence of God and major changes of heart, mind and activity by the new seceders and their sponsors.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Important Tractate by Richard Hooker now available
The Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA is pleased to announce the publication of an important and much quoted/cited Tractate of the famous Anglican divine, Richard Hooker.
Single copies can be ordered on line from www.anglicanmarketplace.com from September 15th
Also it is available from the Office of the Prayer Book Society on a special offer – two for the price of one shipping included – during September. See below for details of how to order.
Richard Hooker (d.1600) Salvation and the Church of Rome (original title “A Learned Discourse on Justification, Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is overthrown”)
Hooker is amongst the most important of Anglican theologians and his fame rests particularly with his book, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, which is a massive defense of the Church of England and its Reformed Catholic Faith.
He also wrote other things and of these none is more important than his Tractate which deals with these themes: -- Puritanism, the Church of Rome, the essential basis of the Church of God, and how the doctrine of justification believed, taught and confessed by the Church of England differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome. This text began its existence as several sermons preached in The Temple Church, London, to barristers, many of whom were Puritans.
Hooker’s literary style is polished but difficult for many people today to appreciate and master, due to the long sentences and complex syntax. Therefore, in this booklet of 64 pages the Discourse has been carefully rendered into modern English in order to make available Hooker’s profound teaching to as many people as possible.
There is a historical and theological introduction before the Text of the Tractate as a further help to the reader.
In the present crisis of Anglicanism there is much to be said for consulting Hooker as to certain basic features of the Anglican Way!
(To get the special offer of 2 for 1 price, send a check for $7.50 to The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220 and state that you want the 2 for 1 Hooker offer. Contact thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com if any problems in ordering)
Single copies can be ordered on line from www.anglicanmarketplace.com from September 15th
Also it is available from the Office of the Prayer Book Society on a special offer – two for the price of one shipping included – during September. See below for details of how to order.
Richard Hooker (d.1600) Salvation and the Church of Rome (original title “A Learned Discourse on Justification, Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is overthrown”)
Hooker is amongst the most important of Anglican theologians and his fame rests particularly with his book, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, which is a massive defense of the Church of England and its Reformed Catholic Faith.
He also wrote other things and of these none is more important than his Tractate which deals with these themes: -- Puritanism, the Church of Rome, the essential basis of the Church of God, and how the doctrine of justification believed, taught and confessed by the Church of England differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome. This text began its existence as several sermons preached in The Temple Church, London, to barristers, many of whom were Puritans.
Hooker’s literary style is polished but difficult for many people today to appreciate and master, due to the long sentences and complex syntax. Therefore, in this booklet of 64 pages the Discourse has been carefully rendered into modern English in order to make available Hooker’s profound teaching to as many people as possible.
There is a historical and theological introduction before the Text of the Tractate as a further help to the reader.
In the present crisis of Anglicanism there is much to be said for consulting Hooker as to certain basic features of the Anglican Way!
(To get the special offer of 2 for 1 price, send a check for $7.50 to The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220 and state that you want the 2 for 1 Hooker offer. Contact thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com if any problems in ordering)
Paving the Way to leave TEC if and when necessary, says Diocese of Pittsburgh
Dr Peter Toon
I want to suggest that there is a assumption, which needs to be challenged, behind proposed legislation to be put before the Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh later this year in order for the Diocese to be able to secede from The Episcopal Church.
The assumption is that the Diocese has been and remains “orthodox” even though it has been and remains constitutionally a member of TEC. To remain orthodox, however, due to the apostasy of TEC, it is claimed that it needs to exit TEC and be clearly and formally part of the Anglican Global Communion of Churches. I believe that this claim of continuing orthodoxy needs to be challenged both for the sake of truth and for the true spiritual prosperity of the people involved. Yet I do fully desire that Pittsburgh diocese be biblically and joyfully orthodox unto the Lord.
Let us recall (or let us do the homework to find out) that what the then Episcopal Church of the USA did in 1976, and confirmed formally in 1979, in its General Convention was deliberately to set aside its received Anglican doctrinal heritage. It placed in the archives its classic, historical Formularies (BCP, Ordinal and Articles of Religion of 1789/1892/1928), which were nearly identical to those of the C of E as found in the BCP 1662 ; it adopted in their place a new Prayer Book of the kind and shape that in England and Canada was then called "A Book of Alternative Services;" and it called this new 1976/79 Prayer Book “The BCP” and made it into its new Formulary (inside of it were new Ordination Services and a new Outline of Faith).
Let us also recall that the USA line of public liturgy and formulary is from 1662 up to Independence and then on via revision of 1662 BCP for a Republic via the official editions of the USA BCP of 1789, 1892 & 1928. This line stops at 1928 – which is still in print from Oxford University Press and other publishers—visit for details www.anglicanmarketplace.com
To students of the history of doctrine and liturgy, the 1979 line represents a clear rejection of this long line that goes back via 1662, 1559 and 1552 to the first edition of the BCP in 1549. and it does so by seeking to re-create it in the light of how the Christian religion looked and felt like in the cultural shake-up of the 1960s and following Vatican II (1962-5). Most of the innovations within ECUSA/TEC since the 1970s may be traced to the embryonic novel doctrines and devotions of the 1979 Book.
Happily the BCP 1928 USA edition is still in use both inside TEC (e.g., by St John’s Savannah & St Andrew’s Fort Worth) and by many churches in Extra-Mural Anglicanism (hundreds of continuing churches). Others use the BCP 1662 without the prayers for the Queen.
Amazingly and providentially the Doctrinal Foundation of The Common Cause movement, which embraces both American and Canadian Anglican groups and jurisdictions, including the Anglican Communion Network, embraces specifically the Formularies of 1662 -- BCP, ordinal and Articles-- to state clearly its Anglican heritage and roots. However, we may suggest that for Americans in Common Cause the proper mental routing is historically via the authentic editions of the classic BCP, from 1928 to 1892, 1892 to 1789, and 1789 to 1662. Only in this route do they do justice to the ways of God’s providence in the Anglican Way in the great nation which is the USA. Yes back to the global Anglican standards of 1662 BCP, Articles and Ordinal but taking the American highway.
What all this suggests is that the whole of the ECUSA or TEC has been in grave error and remains in error-- and this we must recognize includes the so-called Orthodox dioceses like Pittsburgh and Fort Worth -- because it has rejected the classic, historical, received Anglican Way as communicated by the BCP 1662 & BCP 1789/1892/1928 Formularies. It has held on to and continues to hold on to the innovative form of the Anglican Way started in 1976/79. To this day TEC as a whole, nor any part thereof, has not yet repented of this error. Further the "orthodox" of TEC in the Anglican Communion Network do not yet seem to see the powerful connection between the holding to the 1979 Formulary and to their sharing thereby in the responsibility for the innovations and moves towards apostasy embraced by TEC in the last three decades.
One great sign of the movement of the Spirit of the Lord in the present shaking of the American Anglican Way will surely be repentance for the acceptance of this rejection of the classic Anglican Way in 1976/79 and for the proud maintenance of it since then.
I suggest that before going back to the 1662 (which is a great idea) the so-called orthodox dioceses of TEC should state that their real BCP as American Anglicans is 1928 edition and that 1979 is their BAS or ASB; then, they can move on from there to embrace BCP 1662 as in the Common Cause Statement of Faith. But the error of 30 years of devotion to the 1979 ASB/BAS as THE Formulary & Standard of Faith must surely be admitted before God and his people—especially before the trusting laity!
Happily the provinces of the Global South embrace the BCP 1662 as their Formulary in their constitutions, and many churches also use the BCP 1662 in English or the local language. (So much so that there is urgent need in East Africa to reprint the BCP in local languages for use and to send copies of the English edition for use in the towns. The Prayer Book Society [www.pbsusa.org] is engaged in this ministry but there is room for others to help—write to thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com )
I want to suggest that there is a assumption, which needs to be challenged, behind proposed legislation to be put before the Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh later this year in order for the Diocese to be able to secede from The Episcopal Church.
The assumption is that the Diocese has been and remains “orthodox” even though it has been and remains constitutionally a member of TEC. To remain orthodox, however, due to the apostasy of TEC, it is claimed that it needs to exit TEC and be clearly and formally part of the Anglican Global Communion of Churches. I believe that this claim of continuing orthodoxy needs to be challenged both for the sake of truth and for the true spiritual prosperity of the people involved. Yet I do fully desire that Pittsburgh diocese be biblically and joyfully orthodox unto the Lord.
Let us recall (or let us do the homework to find out) that what the then Episcopal Church of the USA did in 1976, and confirmed formally in 1979, in its General Convention was deliberately to set aside its received Anglican doctrinal heritage. It placed in the archives its classic, historical Formularies (BCP, Ordinal and Articles of Religion of 1789/1892/1928), which were nearly identical to those of the C of E as found in the BCP 1662 ; it adopted in their place a new Prayer Book of the kind and shape that in England and Canada was then called "A Book of Alternative Services;" and it called this new 1976/79 Prayer Book “The BCP” and made it into its new Formulary (inside of it were new Ordination Services and a new Outline of Faith).
Let us also recall that the USA line of public liturgy and formulary is from 1662 up to Independence and then on via revision of 1662 BCP for a Republic via the official editions of the USA BCP of 1789, 1892 & 1928. This line stops at 1928 – which is still in print from Oxford University Press and other publishers—visit for details www.anglicanmarketplace.com
To students of the history of doctrine and liturgy, the 1979 line represents a clear rejection of this long line that goes back via 1662, 1559 and 1552 to the first edition of the BCP in 1549. and it does so by seeking to re-create it in the light of how the Christian religion looked and felt like in the cultural shake-up of the 1960s and following Vatican II (1962-5). Most of the innovations within ECUSA/TEC since the 1970s may be traced to the embryonic novel doctrines and devotions of the 1979 Book.
Happily the BCP 1928 USA edition is still in use both inside TEC (e.g., by St John’s Savannah & St Andrew’s Fort Worth) and by many churches in Extra-Mural Anglicanism (hundreds of continuing churches). Others use the BCP 1662 without the prayers for the Queen.
Amazingly and providentially the Doctrinal Foundation of The Common Cause movement, which embraces both American and Canadian Anglican groups and jurisdictions, including the Anglican Communion Network, embraces specifically the Formularies of 1662 -- BCP, ordinal and Articles-- to state clearly its Anglican heritage and roots. However, we may suggest that for Americans in Common Cause the proper mental routing is historically via the authentic editions of the classic BCP, from 1928 to 1892, 1892 to 1789, and 1789 to 1662. Only in this route do they do justice to the ways of God’s providence in the Anglican Way in the great nation which is the USA. Yes back to the global Anglican standards of 1662 BCP, Articles and Ordinal but taking the American highway.
What all this suggests is that the whole of the ECUSA or TEC has been in grave error and remains in error-- and this we must recognize includes the so-called Orthodox dioceses like Pittsburgh and Fort Worth -- because it has rejected the classic, historical, received Anglican Way as communicated by the BCP 1662 & BCP 1789/1892/1928 Formularies. It has held on to and continues to hold on to the innovative form of the Anglican Way started in 1976/79. To this day TEC as a whole, nor any part thereof, has not yet repented of this error. Further the "orthodox" of TEC in the Anglican Communion Network do not yet seem to see the powerful connection between the holding to the 1979 Formulary and to their sharing thereby in the responsibility for the innovations and moves towards apostasy embraced by TEC in the last three decades.
One great sign of the movement of the Spirit of the Lord in the present shaking of the American Anglican Way will surely be repentance for the acceptance of this rejection of the classic Anglican Way in 1976/79 and for the proud maintenance of it since then.
I suggest that before going back to the 1662 (which is a great idea) the so-called orthodox dioceses of TEC should state that their real BCP as American Anglicans is 1928 edition and that 1979 is their BAS or ASB; then, they can move on from there to embrace BCP 1662 as in the Common Cause Statement of Faith. But the error of 30 years of devotion to the 1979 ASB/BAS as THE Formulary & Standard of Faith must surely be admitted before God and his people—especially before the trusting laity!
Happily the provinces of the Global South embrace the BCP 1662 as their Formulary in their constitutions, and many churches also use the BCP 1662 in English or the local language. (So much so that there is urgent need in East Africa to reprint the BCP in local languages for use and to send copies of the English edition for use in the towns. The Prayer Book Society [www.pbsusa.org] is engaged in this ministry but there is room for others to help—write to thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com )
The Changing Vocation and Ministry of the Anglican Prayer Book Societies
An address delivered to the annual Conference of the English Prayer Book Society held at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, September 2007 by Dr. Peter Toon. Download pdf document
Sunday, September 02, 2007
The New Episcopal Religion on view in the candidates for Bishop of Chicago
Comments follow, beneath this extract from website describing a candidate for bishop
http://www.bishopforchicago.org/content/view/66/88888902
The Very Rev. Tracey Lind
Dean, Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland, Ohio, 2000-presentwww.trinitycleveland.org
Greetings from another windy city on a lake. I am honored to be one of your nominees for bishop.
My call to proclaim God’s justice, love, and mercy for all creation has led me to spend 20 years strengthening and sustaining urban and suburban congregations. In doing so, I have integrated my background in community planning, organizational development and nonprofit leadership.
I believe in the abundant grace that springs from practicing radical hospitality; in the power of quality liturgy, stewardship and education to sustain us in Christian life; and in the urgent and absorbing errand of community engagement to which we are called as witnesses of God’s love made known to us in Jesus. Through my spiritual journey, I have developed an abiding hope that the things that separate us from one another may be overcome in the oneness of God.
My life with my partner, Emily Ingalls (a cradle Episcopalian), is the gift that most sustains me. Together, we tend our garden, travel, hike, bicycle, enjoy the arts, and spend time with family and friends. And I like to fly fish, run, read, write and look for God in silence though the third eye of my camera.
Thank you for asking me to participate in your process to discern the future of God’s people in the Diocese of Chicago. I am excited about the possibility of serving and leading a diocese that is Midwestern, metropolitan and motivated by mission. May God bless your work with wisdom, grace, and joy.
Other Nominees
COMMENTS
Tracey provides a near perfect example of the person who has fully embraced the New Episcopal Religion. She is well educated and informed, has a full and varied life, and is deeply religious. Her spirituality, however, flows from a view of the Church as being an agent of social, cultural and political change in society in order to create true community and to bring compassion and justice into the whole of life in this age. Jesus is the model of compassion and justice and as such his maleness has no more significance than the color of his eyes. As to God, though there may be use of Trinitarian language this is more often a basis for claiming God for community (“three in oner and one in three” etc) than describing the Transcendent Being who is in traditional Faith, One Godhead and Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In fact Deity in this religion is more that of the Deity of Panentheism and/or Process Theology (that the world is in God and that God and cosmos are in a process of cosmic evolution together).
Tracey is a Lesbian with a partner, Emily, and this relationship she celebrates as within the love of God The two of them have been gifted and oriented a certain way and to gain happiness and fulfillment they follow their orientation and desires. To do so is to form a basis for holiness.
IT IS OF NOTE that the Diocese of Chicago has not in any way restricted or refused this Nomination even though it flies directly in the face of the requirements placed on The Episcopal Church by the Global Anglican Communion Further, it reveals that the Dean of a Cathedral in TEC (the lady herself) is intent on setting aside the requirements of The Windsor Report and the Primates’ Meeting and the expressed will of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It seems that a dominant part of TEC as an institution is intent on going its own way believing that it has been given by a Deity (but not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) a new form of Religion, loosely related to historical Christianity and very much tied to modern views of human beings as bearers of rights and of natural dignity, which in their fulfillment provide wholeness and holiness. It is a Religion for those who wish to be—in 21st century terms—both in the world and for the world, as Deity’s co-workers, with little or no sense of eternal salvation through the sacrifice and atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.
No wonder that the Primates of the Global South find the new Episcopal Religion to be not anything like what they believe, teach and confess and what they received from American and European missionaries a century ago
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
http://www.bishopforchicago.org/content/view/66/88888902
The Very Rev. Tracey Lind
Dean, Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland, Ohio, 2000-presentwww.trinitycleveland.org
Greetings from another windy city on a lake. I am honored to be one of your nominees for bishop.
My call to proclaim God’s justice, love, and mercy for all creation has led me to spend 20 years strengthening and sustaining urban and suburban congregations. In doing so, I have integrated my background in community planning, organizational development and nonprofit leadership.
I believe in the abundant grace that springs from practicing radical hospitality; in the power of quality liturgy, stewardship and education to sustain us in Christian life; and in the urgent and absorbing errand of community engagement to which we are called as witnesses of God’s love made known to us in Jesus. Through my spiritual journey, I have developed an abiding hope that the things that separate us from one another may be overcome in the oneness of God.
My life with my partner, Emily Ingalls (a cradle Episcopalian), is the gift that most sustains me. Together, we tend our garden, travel, hike, bicycle, enjoy the arts, and spend time with family and friends. And I like to fly fish, run, read, write and look for God in silence though the third eye of my camera.
Thank you for asking me to participate in your process to discern the future of God’s people in the Diocese of Chicago. I am excited about the possibility of serving and leading a diocese that is Midwestern, metropolitan and motivated by mission. May God bless your work with wisdom, grace, and joy.
Other Nominees
COMMENTS
Tracey provides a near perfect example of the person who has fully embraced the New Episcopal Religion. She is well educated and informed, has a full and varied life, and is deeply religious. Her spirituality, however, flows from a view of the Church as being an agent of social, cultural and political change in society in order to create true community and to bring compassion and justice into the whole of life in this age. Jesus is the model of compassion and justice and as such his maleness has no more significance than the color of his eyes. As to God, though there may be use of Trinitarian language this is more often a basis for claiming God for community (“three in oner and one in three” etc) than describing the Transcendent Being who is in traditional Faith, One Godhead and Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In fact Deity in this religion is more that of the Deity of Panentheism and/or Process Theology (that the world is in God and that God and cosmos are in a process of cosmic evolution together).
Tracey is a Lesbian with a partner, Emily, and this relationship she celebrates as within the love of God The two of them have been gifted and oriented a certain way and to gain happiness and fulfillment they follow their orientation and desires. To do so is to form a basis for holiness.
IT IS OF NOTE that the Diocese of Chicago has not in any way restricted or refused this Nomination even though it flies directly in the face of the requirements placed on The Episcopal Church by the Global Anglican Communion Further, it reveals that the Dean of a Cathedral in TEC (the lady herself) is intent on setting aside the requirements of The Windsor Report and the Primates’ Meeting and the expressed will of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It seems that a dominant part of TEC as an institution is intent on going its own way believing that it has been given by a Deity (but not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) a new form of Religion, loosely related to historical Christianity and very much tied to modern views of human beings as bearers of rights and of natural dignity, which in their fulfillment provide wholeness and holiness. It is a Religion for those who wish to be—in 21st century terms—both in the world and for the world, as Deity’s co-workers, with little or no sense of eternal salvation through the sacrifice and atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.
No wonder that the Primates of the Global South find the new Episcopal Religion to be not anything like what they believe, teach and confess and what they received from American and European missionaries a century ago
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
Bishops as the Sign 0f [Dis]Unity?
Reflections on the establishment of the American Episcopate in 1792 & the Secessions with new Episcopates of 1977 and 2004-2007—leading to a Lament!
Various thoughts and feelings have been evoked in many of us by the circulation of color photos on August 29 of many Bishops in a merry, even triumphal, mood in the Anglican Cathedral in Nairobi, Kenya. They were there for the consecration of two Americans as Bishops of the Kenyan Church to be sent forth for service as missionaries in their homeland, the U.S.A.
Here are some of those thoughts evoked by the pictures in terms of a reflection.
The American Episcopate 1792
Anyone familiar with the origins of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. in the 1780s knows that the foundation of the American Anglican Episcopate came only with pain, perseverance, negotiations, diplomacy and much—very much—patience by Episcopalians. The consecration on Monday, September 17, 1792, of Thomas John Clagett at Trinity Church New York City by the Bishops of New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Virginia (all of whom had been consecrated in Britain) was truly a momentous occasion for The Anglican Way outside of the British Empire. It was a major triumph of human diplomacy and prevenient grace to have Samuel Seabury, Bishop of Connecticut, sharing in a Service with Bishop Samuel Provoost of New York, for they had been in bitter combat for a long time. The new Episcopate became a sign of the unity of the Episcopal Church in the new Republic.
Continuing Anglicans, 1977-2007
Anyone familiar with the origins of The Continuing Anglican Church of 1977 knows that it seceded from PECUSA with high principles and with a vision of reforming and renewing the Anglican Way. Regrettably, the one movement was soon divided and became several jurisdictions (which remain with offshoots to the present). A chief reason for the internal schism was differences over the establishing of the Episcopate for this Church. Patience and diplomacy were in short supply and before the Church had had time to know itself and its possibilities it had four different lines of Bishops. So instead of Bishops being the Sign of the Unity of the Church they have been in these continuing Anglican jurisdictions signs of the very opposite, disunity; and they remain so despite various attempts to reconcile.
Anglicans looking to the Global South, 2004-7
Anyone familiar with what has been happening to the congregations that have seceded from PECUSA (“The Episcopal Church”) in the last few years knows that they have sought validation and support from Archbishops and Bishops from Provinces of the Global South’ and that they have not sought in vain. Not only are many individual congregations supervised by an overseas bishop, but the Provinces of Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda have set up missionary jurisdictions and networks inside what has always been seen as the “territory” of The Episcopal Church on the American “homeland.” For these they have consecrated and allocated Bishops.
So, at a time when The Episcopal Church is still a member of the Anglican Communion of Churches, the Global South is treating it as if it were no longer a member and never to return as a member! Of course, seemingly good (even compelling) reasons are offered for this strange and abnormal state of ecclesial affairs; but; an external observer could legitimately wonder why such a rush, why not more patience, and why so many different jurisdictions all doing their own thing—why can’t they all wait until the time—say after Lambeth 2008— is truly ripe and then act in concert! So, once again, Bishops in modern innovative American Anglicanism are not the sign of unity but of, if not dis-unity, of diversity held together only by minimal “bonds of affection,” and with no internal American means of order polity and discipline for this whole movement.
In the light of American Church History…
It is, as it were, part of the landscape and thus hardly noticed, but the phenomenon of the massive supermarket of religions is peculiar to America for all kinds of historical, cultural, social and religious reasons. This ever present reality means that to use a very simple example, it is nearly as easy to start a new denomination as it is to push a car over a cliff, and it is more difficult to unite existing denominations, even of one type, than it is to haul a car back to the road from the bottom of the cliff.
Right now the “orthodox” school or movement in American Anglicanism, loosely in touch with each other via Common Cause is composed of:
• Dioceses within PECUSA
• Anglican Mission in America (Rwanda)
• Convocation of Anglicans in North America (Nigeria)
• A Kenyan “Diocese”
• A Ugandan “Diocese”
• Anglican Province of America (from the Continuing Anglicanism)
• Reformed Episcopal Church (begun in 1873)
• Anglican Communion Network
• Various Canadian Groups.
Here is the potential—if miracles occur today in ecclesial relations—of a new Anglican Province for America either to replace or to exist alongside PECUSA. Here also—in terms of the way things usually happen by the providence of God in America—is the potential for a new divided Continuing of Networks and Dioceses with allegiances to foreign shores and bishops.
If this potential were realized for a New Province it would still leave outside the new Province the following:
• Many “continuing” churches and jurisdictions
• The networks of Indian congregations related to the Churches of North and South India (members of the Anglican Communion)
• Not to mention PECUSA itself.
What causes one to lament is manifold—the seemingly inevitable divided state of The Anglican Way in North America; the failure of the Global South to study the secession of 1977 and the nature of the American supermarket of religions to learn from them; the haste of the Global South in setting up different and potentially ecclesial rivals, ahead of the Primates September 30, 2007 deadline for PECUSA and of the 2008 Lambeth Conference; and the apparent triumphalism which is being displayed both in the U.S.A. and Canada (not to mention in Africa) over these recent developments.
Perhaps the outward vesture and attitude ought to be sackcloth and ashes rather than ornate Episcopal attire and vestments (as the photos of August 29 declare).
Let us pray:
Grant to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do anything that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
Various thoughts and feelings have been evoked in many of us by the circulation of color photos on August 29 of many Bishops in a merry, even triumphal, mood in the Anglican Cathedral in Nairobi, Kenya. They were there for the consecration of two Americans as Bishops of the Kenyan Church to be sent forth for service as missionaries in their homeland, the U.S.A.
Here are some of those thoughts evoked by the pictures in terms of a reflection.
The American Episcopate 1792
Anyone familiar with the origins of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. in the 1780s knows that the foundation of the American Anglican Episcopate came only with pain, perseverance, negotiations, diplomacy and much—very much—patience by Episcopalians. The consecration on Monday, September 17, 1792, of Thomas John Clagett at Trinity Church New York City by the Bishops of New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Virginia (all of whom had been consecrated in Britain) was truly a momentous occasion for The Anglican Way outside of the British Empire. It was a major triumph of human diplomacy and prevenient grace to have Samuel Seabury, Bishop of Connecticut, sharing in a Service with Bishop Samuel Provoost of New York, for they had been in bitter combat for a long time. The new Episcopate became a sign of the unity of the Episcopal Church in the new Republic.
Continuing Anglicans, 1977-2007
Anyone familiar with the origins of The Continuing Anglican Church of 1977 knows that it seceded from PECUSA with high principles and with a vision of reforming and renewing the Anglican Way. Regrettably, the one movement was soon divided and became several jurisdictions (which remain with offshoots to the present). A chief reason for the internal schism was differences over the establishing of the Episcopate for this Church. Patience and diplomacy were in short supply and before the Church had had time to know itself and its possibilities it had four different lines of Bishops. So instead of Bishops being the Sign of the Unity of the Church they have been in these continuing Anglican jurisdictions signs of the very opposite, disunity; and they remain so despite various attempts to reconcile.
Anglicans looking to the Global South, 2004-7
Anyone familiar with what has been happening to the congregations that have seceded from PECUSA (“The Episcopal Church”) in the last few years knows that they have sought validation and support from Archbishops and Bishops from Provinces of the Global South’ and that they have not sought in vain. Not only are many individual congregations supervised by an overseas bishop, but the Provinces of Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda have set up missionary jurisdictions and networks inside what has always been seen as the “territory” of The Episcopal Church on the American “homeland.” For these they have consecrated and allocated Bishops.
So, at a time when The Episcopal Church is still a member of the Anglican Communion of Churches, the Global South is treating it as if it were no longer a member and never to return as a member! Of course, seemingly good (even compelling) reasons are offered for this strange and abnormal state of ecclesial affairs; but; an external observer could legitimately wonder why such a rush, why not more patience, and why so many different jurisdictions all doing their own thing—why can’t they all wait until the time—say after Lambeth 2008— is truly ripe and then act in concert! So, once again, Bishops in modern innovative American Anglicanism are not the sign of unity but of, if not dis-unity, of diversity held together only by minimal “bonds of affection,” and with no internal American means of order polity and discipline for this whole movement.
In the light of American Church History…
It is, as it were, part of the landscape and thus hardly noticed, but the phenomenon of the massive supermarket of religions is peculiar to America for all kinds of historical, cultural, social and religious reasons. This ever present reality means that to use a very simple example, it is nearly as easy to start a new denomination as it is to push a car over a cliff, and it is more difficult to unite existing denominations, even of one type, than it is to haul a car back to the road from the bottom of the cliff.
Right now the “orthodox” school or movement in American Anglicanism, loosely in touch with each other via Common Cause is composed of:
• Dioceses within PECUSA
• Anglican Mission in America (Rwanda)
• Convocation of Anglicans in North America (Nigeria)
• A Kenyan “Diocese”
• A Ugandan “Diocese”
• Anglican Province of America (from the Continuing Anglicanism)
• Reformed Episcopal Church (begun in 1873)
• Anglican Communion Network
• Various Canadian Groups.
Here is the potential—if miracles occur today in ecclesial relations—of a new Anglican Province for America either to replace or to exist alongside PECUSA. Here also—in terms of the way things usually happen by the providence of God in America—is the potential for a new divided Continuing of Networks and Dioceses with allegiances to foreign shores and bishops.
If this potential were realized for a New Province it would still leave outside the new Province the following:
• Many “continuing” churches and jurisdictions
• The networks of Indian congregations related to the Churches of North and South India (members of the Anglican Communion)
• Not to mention PECUSA itself.
What causes one to lament is manifold—the seemingly inevitable divided state of The Anglican Way in North America; the failure of the Global South to study the secession of 1977 and the nature of the American supermarket of religions to learn from them; the haste of the Global South in setting up different and potentially ecclesial rivals, ahead of the Primates September 30, 2007 deadline for PECUSA and of the 2008 Lambeth Conference; and the apparent triumphalism which is being displayed both in the U.S.A. and Canada (not to mention in Africa) over these recent developments.
Perhaps the outward vesture and attitude ought to be sackcloth and ashes rather than ornate Episcopal attire and vestments (as the photos of August 29 declare).
Let us pray:
Grant to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do anything that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
BURIAL in God’s Acre or Cast into the Wind from the Hill Top.
The last half century has seen changing attitudes not only to the act of dying but also to how the human body after death is treated. For one thing, there has been a tremendous increase in the use of cremation in the West to dispose efficiently of the corpse or to reduce it to manageable size for being placed in a resting place. For another thing, the positive value placed on cemeteries and graveyards by society has been eroding.
One may claim that in American culture, religion and law from the colonial days to the decades immediately after World War II, there was a deeply ingrained respect for the dead and for the places set apart for the burial of dead bodies. And the underlying reason for this profound respect was the Judaeo-Christian heritage that (a) human beings are created as a unity of body-soul in the image and after the likeness of God; and (b) that the graveyard is a dormitory (=cemetery) where the bodies “sleep” until the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. To this, for Christians especially, was the added dimension that the body had been made holy by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and is precious unto the Lord.
In the American courts a powerful metaphor (for a public that knew the content of the Bible) used by judges to emphasize the sacredness and uniqueness of land consecrated for burials was “God’s Acre.” It was based on Genesis 23, a chapter wholly given over to the purchase of a burial place, the Cave of Machpelah with the adjoining land, by Abraham for his wife Sarah. This burial place then became the resting place for all the patriarchs of Israel, together with their wives and families (see Genesis 25:9; 49:31 & 50:13) and is thus an important piece of hallowed ground for the Jewish Bible (= Christian OT). It is still hallowed ground for Jews, Christians and Muslims and is situated at modern Hebron.
As far as I can tell, the last use of this metaphor by the Courts to emphasize the unique nature of consecrated burial-land was in the mid 1960s. The dropping of this metaphor may be seen to reflect not only the decreased knowledge of the Bible by the general public, but also the changing perception of the social value of burial-lands, especially when they claim prime land in growing cities. (Apparently the modern city of San Francisco has no burial grounds at all within its boundaries.)
Sometimes cremation is the only possibility available in modern times to residents in a city or with very limited means. And a major problem here is that this can occur in such a way—and there exist societies to make this possible— that there is virtually no respect for the dead as the children of a loving Creator displayed at all in the very technological and mechanical processes.
It is well to recall that one consistent theme through human history until the latest phase of the western world has been the awesome respect for the dead and for ancestral graves. Indeed, what archaeologists find more than anything else as they unearth the remains of previous civilizations is that there is a preponderance of artifacts which relate to the care of the dead!
All this—and much more than can be told here—point in the direction that the only way in some cases to ensure a Christian burial for oneself and using a wholesome Rite is (a) to make this clear in one’s will and other papers, and (b) leave the money for it to be done. Alternatively, one needs to leave instruction that if cremation is used, it is used in such a way as to honor the basic doctrines of the human being in God’s image and the hope of the resurrection of the body—and this is easier said than done, as caring pastors know from experience.
Regrettably many modern funerals—even in church—have little to do with the proclamation of the Christian hope of the union of body-soul in a new resurrection body of glory for life in the communion of saints in glory, and much to do with “a celebration of a life”, the telling of the supposed good life and deeds of the deceased. That is they look backwards (not sure there is a future to look into) instead of forward in faith, HOPE and love.
Dr Peter Toon,
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
One may claim that in American culture, religion and law from the colonial days to the decades immediately after World War II, there was a deeply ingrained respect for the dead and for the places set apart for the burial of dead bodies. And the underlying reason for this profound respect was the Judaeo-Christian heritage that (a) human beings are created as a unity of body-soul in the image and after the likeness of God; and (b) that the graveyard is a dormitory (=cemetery) where the bodies “sleep” until the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. To this, for Christians especially, was the added dimension that the body had been made holy by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and is precious unto the Lord.
In the American courts a powerful metaphor (for a public that knew the content of the Bible) used by judges to emphasize the sacredness and uniqueness of land consecrated for burials was “God’s Acre.” It was based on Genesis 23, a chapter wholly given over to the purchase of a burial place, the Cave of Machpelah with the adjoining land, by Abraham for his wife Sarah. This burial place then became the resting place for all the patriarchs of Israel, together with their wives and families (see Genesis 25:9; 49:31 & 50:13) and is thus an important piece of hallowed ground for the Jewish Bible (= Christian OT). It is still hallowed ground for Jews, Christians and Muslims and is situated at modern Hebron.
As far as I can tell, the last use of this metaphor by the Courts to emphasize the unique nature of consecrated burial-land was in the mid 1960s. The dropping of this metaphor may be seen to reflect not only the decreased knowledge of the Bible by the general public, but also the changing perception of the social value of burial-lands, especially when they claim prime land in growing cities. (Apparently the modern city of San Francisco has no burial grounds at all within its boundaries.)
Sometimes cremation is the only possibility available in modern times to residents in a city or with very limited means. And a major problem here is that this can occur in such a way—and there exist societies to make this possible— that there is virtually no respect for the dead as the children of a loving Creator displayed at all in the very technological and mechanical processes.
It is well to recall that one consistent theme through human history until the latest phase of the western world has been the awesome respect for the dead and for ancestral graves. Indeed, what archaeologists find more than anything else as they unearth the remains of previous civilizations is that there is a preponderance of artifacts which relate to the care of the dead!
All this—and much more than can be told here—point in the direction that the only way in some cases to ensure a Christian burial for oneself and using a wholesome Rite is (a) to make this clear in one’s will and other papers, and (b) leave the money for it to be done. Alternatively, one needs to leave instruction that if cremation is used, it is used in such a way as to honor the basic doctrines of the human being in God’s image and the hope of the resurrection of the body—and this is easier said than done, as caring pastors know from experience.
Regrettably many modern funerals—even in church—have little to do with the proclamation of the Christian hope of the union of body-soul in a new resurrection body of glory for life in the communion of saints in glory, and much to do with “a celebration of a life”, the telling of the supposed good life and deeds of the deceased. That is they look backwards (not sure there is a future to look into) instead of forward in faith, HOPE and love.
Dr Peter Toon,
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Why using TEC Prayer Book of 1979 is spiritually dangerous!
Please read this short essay before you laugh or consign it to the garbage.
If there is one connection waiting to be made,
if there is one situation where the penny has not dropped,
if there is one possession ripe for rejection,
If there is one road ready to be traveled upon:
And if there is one group that has not yet seen the light, a people who need a disclosure from above to help them to see clearly, it is those present and former Episcopalians, who make a specific doctrinal claim and use liturgy of a specific kind, and are guided in one way or another by the leaders of the Global South.
First of all they claim to be “orthodox,” and not “revisionists” like the leaders of TEC. Secondly, like the “revisionists,” they use ardently the 1979 Prayer Book, the chief creation and symbol of TEC, even though they believe TEC is far away from the Way, Truth and Life as they are in Jesus, and has been so for a long time.
Apparently, few, if any of them, do not see, or at least do not admit, that their practice is not only illogical but also spiritually and morally harmful to them and to those whom they seek to influence and to evangelize. Further, they do not apparently realize that in recently adopting (as the Anglican Communion Network) the Formularies of 1662 as their standard of Faith, they have by public statement at least moved away from the chief creation and symbol of TEC, the 1979 Prayer Book & Formulary.
In other words, and being more specific, most members of the Anglican Communion Network, the Anglican Mission in America and other recent seceders from TEC like many in CANA and other groupings do not seem to realize that their continued attachment to, and use of, that 1979 Book—which embodies in embryo and in principle the reasons for the serious departure of TEC in recent times from the received Anglican Faith and Way—is a most spiritually dangerous course. In fact, their love affair (for this is what it appears to be) with it may be the chief reason why their desire and plans to become the core people of a new Anglican Province may come to nothing and cause profound disappointment in the long term.
What I suggest that we need to ponder and take to heart is that as a symbol, the 1979 Prayer Book represents virtually all that is wrong with the modern American denomination, TEC. Here is some of the evidence for my suggestion in summary form:
1) The very existence of this 1979 Book presents the arrogance and pride of the former ECUSA (now TEC) in clarity. The General Convention then in 1976 & 1979 (as now in 2006) predominantly cares much for American rights and little for the common global good. The 1979 Book should have been “The Book of Alternative Services” and the classic Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Articles (the Formularies) in their 1928 edition should have been left in place—as they were in other provinces like Australia, Canada, England and Ireland when they introduced alternative liturgies. Thus the 1979 book is the symbol of the arrogance of TEC, the same spirit as in 2006-7 sees itself above and beyond the content and requirements of The Windsor Report and the common mind of The Primates’ Meeting. To use this Book in 2007—with whatever mindset—is publicly to identify with this arrogance and further it is to identify with the deliberate rejection of the classic Formularies which the 1979 Book was clearly designed and set forth as the replacement for. [To state this strong position is not to say that there are not some rites and services in the Book which can be used profitably, for such there are. But it is to state that as a symbol and as used as a formulary it represents the very arrogance which is a primary cause of the global crisis of Anglicanism.]
2) The Book was intended to deceive the faithful by giving them something which seemed sufficiently like the old and yet which seemed to be relevant to the young people of the 1970s. That is, it claimed to be presenting orthodoxy in an attractive way when in fact it was deliberately designed to undermine the received orthodoxy of the Anglican Way. It was designed as a new form of Episcopalianism for a new post-1960s world. What follow are some illustrations of this point:
3) Take the Preface. This was written for the first American edition of The BCP 1789 that had been approved by the English Bishops as being of the same doctrine as the classic edition of 1662 (which had been used in the 13 Colonies for a long time before Independence). It is wholly unsuitable for the innovative 1979 Book but it is placed in it without any explanation of this fact. This is deceit making it appear as if the 1979 is a classic edition of the BCP.
4) Take the Baptismal Service, the centre-piece of which is the so-called “Baptismal Covenant,” to which the leadership of TEC is deeply even fanatically committed. The amazing arrogance here is that a covenant is supposedly agreed with God by those to be baptized before God actually presents His own covenant of Grace in the words of Baptism—“I baptize you in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” In the Bible God creates the covenant and then calls human beings into it. In Baptism God offers the covenant of grace and gives it through the actually baptism itself (water and words); and then the duties of those baptized as covenant members are usually stated. The 1979 Covenant celebrates what are human rights and powers of negotiation and it has been called Pelagianism; furthermore, it presents a covenant to be presented to God that is moulded within the zeitgeist of the 1960s—peace and justice and dignity etc., leading to a wholly social gospel as we see now in TEC.
5) Take the Marriage Service, intended to follow on from the revision of canon law in 1973 and to accommodate to both the divorce culture and to the increasingly common idea that marriage is basically a loving relation of two persons for as long as they choose and in their own terms—not to mention the availability of artificial birth control. Thus 1979 has no clear teaching of the biblical institution of marriage as primarily for the procreation and raising of children in the love and fear of the Lord. This is merely an option. In fact this service with a few amendments is being used by same-sex couples who also want only a loving faithful partnership and perhaps the right to adopt children if they feel like it. The origins of the same-sex blessings can be traced to this service as one major source.
6) Take the persistent way that the (supposed) “Holy Trinity” as GOD is presented. Not as in the Bible or in previous well-known Liturgies of East and West, but in an innovative way such that it can be read either as orthodox (by the orthodox in heart) or as representing openness to various possibilities (by those who are exploring these). “God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” of 1979 is not the same as “God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” or “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, One God.” The 1979 expression can mean—as in Modalism, Unitarianism, Panentheism etc.—“God as One Person who self presents in three basic Modes—as Father, as Son and as Holy Spirit (or if you like, as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier).” The amazing thing is that this favored expression in 1979 claims to be based upon a well known blessing in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy: “Blessed be the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit, now and always even unto ages of ages.” In the context of the Divine Liturgy the Three Persons are the Three Persons who are One Deity for they all share the one and identical Godhead. Oh that this were also clearly the case in 1979.
7) Take the Shape or Structure of “The Holy Eucharist” which is clearly based upon the novel ideas of Gregory Dix, ideas which are now generally discredited (see The Oxford History of Christian Worship, 2006, chaps 1-3). Even the text taken over from the classic BCP 1928 Order for Holy Communion was divided and modified in order to fit into the Dix pattern.
8) Likewise take the heavy dependence of the texts for both Ordinations and the Eucharist in 1979 upon the supposed special value and content of the writings of Hippolytus of Rome because they were so early. Virtually all scholars now believe that the date for the “Works” of Hippolytus is much later than was presumed in the 1960s and thus the use of them on this basis in 1979 is deeply flawed. (See again the Oxford History.)
9) Then take the so-called inclusive language which made its way into the Psalter in a big way and into the Rites in a lesser but real way—language which has now become the norm for TEC in all liturgies. By this the biblical distinctions between male and female are hidden and further Christ is eliminated from his Prayer Book, the Psalter. See Psalm 1:1 where the Hebrew original speaks of the righteous godly man and the early Church spoke of Christ as The Man in Psalm 1 and as the content of the Psalter. For 1979 Christ is reduced to “Happy are they…”
10) A dominating idea of the creators of 1979 was that in the Early Church there was a Unitary Festival of 50 days from Passover to Pentecost (from Good Friday to the Descent of the Spirit). Thus they spoke enthusiastically of the great fifty days and they numbered the Sundays after Easter Day as Easter 2, Easter 3 etc, teaching that Easter lasted for fifty days. The effects of this were many—virtually no recognition of Ascension Day, the claim that there should be no public confession of sins and all should stand and not kneel on this 50 day Easter, and the keeping alight of the Pascal Candle until Pentecost (rather extinguishing at the reading of his Ascension on the 40th day). To be guided so much by what was only in place temporarily in the Early Church and which was replaced especially in the West by the 40 plus 10 arrangement was a major mistake.
Much more could be stated by way of illustration—e.g. relating to radical feminism and female ordinations— but this has been done in various works:—see e.g. Tarsitano & Toon in Neither Orthodoxy nor a Formulary, and Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004, from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or 1-800-727-1928.
One immediate way forward would be to use either the cast-into-the archives-in-1979 genuine American edition of the BCP and Ordinal (that of 1928 and still in print and use) or the global edition of the BCP & Ordinal (that of 1662 and available in many languages). And if there is a problem with the traditional language forms of these two editions then they can be rendered into contemporary English without changing their structure, doctrine or spirituality.
The identity of Anglicans is profound related to the Bible as the authority for faith and conduct and the Formularies as the sure guides for worship, doctrine and discipline. The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants but the Bible served by the Prayer Book, Ordinal and Articles is the religion of Anglicans.
If there is one connection waiting to be made,
if there is one situation where the penny has not dropped,
if there is one possession ripe for rejection,
If there is one road ready to be traveled upon:
And if there is one group that has not yet seen the light, a people who need a disclosure from above to help them to see clearly, it is those present and former Episcopalians, who make a specific doctrinal claim and use liturgy of a specific kind, and are guided in one way or another by the leaders of the Global South.
First of all they claim to be “orthodox,” and not “revisionists” like the leaders of TEC. Secondly, like the “revisionists,” they use ardently the 1979 Prayer Book, the chief creation and symbol of TEC, even though they believe TEC is far away from the Way, Truth and Life as they are in Jesus, and has been so for a long time.
Apparently, few, if any of them, do not see, or at least do not admit, that their practice is not only illogical but also spiritually and morally harmful to them and to those whom they seek to influence and to evangelize. Further, they do not apparently realize that in recently adopting (as the Anglican Communion Network) the Formularies of 1662 as their standard of Faith, they have by public statement at least moved away from the chief creation and symbol of TEC, the 1979 Prayer Book & Formulary.
In other words, and being more specific, most members of the Anglican Communion Network, the Anglican Mission in America and other recent seceders from TEC like many in CANA and other groupings do not seem to realize that their continued attachment to, and use of, that 1979 Book—which embodies in embryo and in principle the reasons for the serious departure of TEC in recent times from the received Anglican Faith and Way—is a most spiritually dangerous course. In fact, their love affair (for this is what it appears to be) with it may be the chief reason why their desire and plans to become the core people of a new Anglican Province may come to nothing and cause profound disappointment in the long term.
What I suggest that we need to ponder and take to heart is that as a symbol, the 1979 Prayer Book represents virtually all that is wrong with the modern American denomination, TEC. Here is some of the evidence for my suggestion in summary form:
1) The very existence of this 1979 Book presents the arrogance and pride of the former ECUSA (now TEC) in clarity. The General Convention then in 1976 & 1979 (as now in 2006) predominantly cares much for American rights and little for the common global good. The 1979 Book should have been “The Book of Alternative Services” and the classic Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Articles (the Formularies) in their 1928 edition should have been left in place—as they were in other provinces like Australia, Canada, England and Ireland when they introduced alternative liturgies. Thus the 1979 book is the symbol of the arrogance of TEC, the same spirit as in 2006-7 sees itself above and beyond the content and requirements of The Windsor Report and the common mind of The Primates’ Meeting. To use this Book in 2007—with whatever mindset—is publicly to identify with this arrogance and further it is to identify with the deliberate rejection of the classic Formularies which the 1979 Book was clearly designed and set forth as the replacement for. [To state this strong position is not to say that there are not some rites and services in the Book which can be used profitably, for such there are. But it is to state that as a symbol and as used as a formulary it represents the very arrogance which is a primary cause of the global crisis of Anglicanism.]
2) The Book was intended to deceive the faithful by giving them something which seemed sufficiently like the old and yet which seemed to be relevant to the young people of the 1970s. That is, it claimed to be presenting orthodoxy in an attractive way when in fact it was deliberately designed to undermine the received orthodoxy of the Anglican Way. It was designed as a new form of Episcopalianism for a new post-1960s world. What follow are some illustrations of this point:
3) Take the Preface. This was written for the first American edition of The BCP 1789 that had been approved by the English Bishops as being of the same doctrine as the classic edition of 1662 (which had been used in the 13 Colonies for a long time before Independence). It is wholly unsuitable for the innovative 1979 Book but it is placed in it without any explanation of this fact. This is deceit making it appear as if the 1979 is a classic edition of the BCP.
4) Take the Baptismal Service, the centre-piece of which is the so-called “Baptismal Covenant,” to which the leadership of TEC is deeply even fanatically committed. The amazing arrogance here is that a covenant is supposedly agreed with God by those to be baptized before God actually presents His own covenant of Grace in the words of Baptism—“I baptize you in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” In the Bible God creates the covenant and then calls human beings into it. In Baptism God offers the covenant of grace and gives it through the actually baptism itself (water and words); and then the duties of those baptized as covenant members are usually stated. The 1979 Covenant celebrates what are human rights and powers of negotiation and it has been called Pelagianism; furthermore, it presents a covenant to be presented to God that is moulded within the zeitgeist of the 1960s—peace and justice and dignity etc., leading to a wholly social gospel as we see now in TEC.
5) Take the Marriage Service, intended to follow on from the revision of canon law in 1973 and to accommodate to both the divorce culture and to the increasingly common idea that marriage is basically a loving relation of two persons for as long as they choose and in their own terms—not to mention the availability of artificial birth control. Thus 1979 has no clear teaching of the biblical institution of marriage as primarily for the procreation and raising of children in the love and fear of the Lord. This is merely an option. In fact this service with a few amendments is being used by same-sex couples who also want only a loving faithful partnership and perhaps the right to adopt children if they feel like it. The origins of the same-sex blessings can be traced to this service as one major source.
6) Take the persistent way that the (supposed) “Holy Trinity” as GOD is presented. Not as in the Bible or in previous well-known Liturgies of East and West, but in an innovative way such that it can be read either as orthodox (by the orthodox in heart) or as representing openness to various possibilities (by those who are exploring these). “God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” of 1979 is not the same as “God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” or “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, One God.” The 1979 expression can mean—as in Modalism, Unitarianism, Panentheism etc.—“God as One Person who self presents in three basic Modes—as Father, as Son and as Holy Spirit (or if you like, as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier).” The amazing thing is that this favored expression in 1979 claims to be based upon a well known blessing in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy: “Blessed be the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit, now and always even unto ages of ages.” In the context of the Divine Liturgy the Three Persons are the Three Persons who are One Deity for they all share the one and identical Godhead. Oh that this were also clearly the case in 1979.
7) Take the Shape or Structure of “The Holy Eucharist” which is clearly based upon the novel ideas of Gregory Dix, ideas which are now generally discredited (see The Oxford History of Christian Worship, 2006, chaps 1-3). Even the text taken over from the classic BCP 1928 Order for Holy Communion was divided and modified in order to fit into the Dix pattern.
8) Likewise take the heavy dependence of the texts for both Ordinations and the Eucharist in 1979 upon the supposed special value and content of the writings of Hippolytus of Rome because they were so early. Virtually all scholars now believe that the date for the “Works” of Hippolytus is much later than was presumed in the 1960s and thus the use of them on this basis in 1979 is deeply flawed. (See again the Oxford History.)
9) Then take the so-called inclusive language which made its way into the Psalter in a big way and into the Rites in a lesser but real way—language which has now become the norm for TEC in all liturgies. By this the biblical distinctions between male and female are hidden and further Christ is eliminated from his Prayer Book, the Psalter. See Psalm 1:1 where the Hebrew original speaks of the righteous godly man and the early Church spoke of Christ as The Man in Psalm 1 and as the content of the Psalter. For 1979 Christ is reduced to “Happy are they…”
10) A dominating idea of the creators of 1979 was that in the Early Church there was a Unitary Festival of 50 days from Passover to Pentecost (from Good Friday to the Descent of the Spirit). Thus they spoke enthusiastically of the great fifty days and they numbered the Sundays after Easter Day as Easter 2, Easter 3 etc, teaching that Easter lasted for fifty days. The effects of this were many—virtually no recognition of Ascension Day, the claim that there should be no public confession of sins and all should stand and not kneel on this 50 day Easter, and the keeping alight of the Pascal Candle until Pentecost (rather extinguishing at the reading of his Ascension on the 40th day). To be guided so much by what was only in place temporarily in the Early Church and which was replaced especially in the West by the 40 plus 10 arrangement was a major mistake.
Much more could be stated by way of illustration—e.g. relating to radical feminism and female ordinations— but this has been done in various works:—see e.g. Tarsitano & Toon in Neither Orthodoxy nor a Formulary, and Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004, from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or 1-800-727-1928.
One immediate way forward would be to use either the cast-into-the archives-in-1979 genuine American edition of the BCP and Ordinal (that of 1928 and still in print and use) or the global edition of the BCP & Ordinal (that of 1662 and available in many languages). And if there is a problem with the traditional language forms of these two editions then they can be rendered into contemporary English without changing their structure, doctrine or spirituality.
The identity of Anglicans is profound related to the Bible as the authority for faith and conduct and the Formularies as the sure guides for worship, doctrine and discipline. The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants but the Bible served by the Prayer Book, Ordinal and Articles is the religion of Anglicans.
Same-sex “Marriage,” Children and the Global South
A discussion and Prayer Starter
In this short piece, I want to put forward the argument that the Anglican Global South leadership has not yet in its public statements shown that it understands fully what has happened in The Episcopal Church (and Canadian Church) in terms of innovations in sexual morality and church rites. And what it is not saying is crucially important.
Please be patient with me as I try to explain.
Let us accept that we live in a world where to affirm human dignity and to accept that human beings have rights (natural, civil and human) is an essential part of moral and political discourse. Each and every human being has the right to be treated with dignity and this includes—in all western nations—human beings who identify themselves as homosexual persons. And, let us not forget. it also includes babies and children!
Let me now propose that what is ultimately at issue—but rarely recognized—in the very modern debate concerning giving the legal right to two homosexual persons to marry each other in a civil ceremony (or in the church equivalent of this to be blessed by a Minister in a public service) is the following—the clashing of two agreed human rights.
One is the recently accepted right of the homosexual person to be treated with dignity and justly, and the other (set forth in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and in further Declarations & Conventions) is the right of a child wherever possible to be raised in a stable family by his/her biological parents.
What we see happening before our eyes is this: that once a State, or once a Church, begins effectively to define marriage in terms of the voluntary association of two persons for purposes, which they define themselves, and for as long as they determine, and that these purposes do not necessarily—where biologically possible—include the procreation and care of children, then what we call the institution of marriage has been drastically revised from what it has been in western culture for as long as there has been western culture. Indeed, as an ancient institution, marriage has been dissolved and in its place is the permission of the state for any two persons legally to form a partnership where most of the rules are created by the participants and where the state provides various benefits.
Today we may say that in western nations there are two basic kinds of marriage. The traditional one in church and culture is that the institution based upon vow and promise exists on its own independent of the couple and of the state. A man and a woman enter into an already existing institution which has it own meaning and purposes. In contrast, the modern one in church and culture is that the couple (of opposite or same sex) exist before the vow and promise, and they create the institution for themselves on their own terms (creating their own vows). In both cases the State regulates; but, while the traditional form of marriage existed before the State (John Locke the philosopher calls it “the first Society”), the modern form is a creation of the State through such legislation as no-fault divorce and licensing of same-sex couples.
Turning now to The Episcopal Church, one can say that beginning in 1973 when it dramatically changed its canon law on marriage and divorce, continuing with creating the new marriage service in the new prayer book of 1976/79 (where procreation and the raising of children is no longer presented as a basic purpose of marriage) and ending with the growing number of blessings of same-sex partners, this Church has drifted with modern culture towards the abandonment of the received Institution of Marriage, as that has been understood in church and state until very recent times.
Of course, there are Episcopalians who read and use the marriage service in the 1979 prayer book in traditional terms and, further, they believe that in marriage that they enter into an institution that existed before they married. However, in terms of the practical evidence of the life of the Episcopal Church, what one sees is the gradual and sure erosion of the traditional Institution of Marriage as that to which the Church holds and fosters, and in its place the acceptance of the new kind of marriage which is dependent upon the definitions of the State for its authenticity and which is defined by those entering into it in terms of its purpose and their mutual benefits.
Back to children! One of the major purposes of marriage over the centuries has been to raise, protect and educate children for life in society. In the modern situation of the letting go of the traditional view of marriage as an institution, whether we think of the effects in terms of the harm caused to children by the impact of divorce and remarriage, or by their being conceived in order to be adopted and raised by a same-sex couple, what we are aiding and abetting is the denial of the rights of children—their rights to be raised wherever possible by their biological parents, by their father and mother, in a stable environment. The way we are treating children is extremely bad and we do it in order to exalt the rights of adults to personal satisfaction and happiness.
To see all this, one does not need to read or cite one word of the Bible for it is clear to sociological and anthropological research. However, the Bible itself puts forth a very powerful doctrine of the institution of marriage which most regrettably many modern churches in the West have seriously undermined. And this undermining of Holy Matrimony is as much found with the conservatives as with the liberal progressives, but each side uses different ways and means to do the undermining (e.g. see how the divorce culture is absorbed by traditionalist bishops in continuing Anglican churches by giving annulments left, right and center, and especially to clergy!).
Enter the Global South
As I indicated in The Mandate (July-August 2007—read at www.pbsusa.org) I really think that the Global South has not yet awakened to the full story of what has happened to sexual morality in Episcopalianism. At this late hour, I believe that they would be well advised to make their message a positive one to America and Canada – restore the biblical institution of marriage, Holy Matrimony, as not only the ideal but also as that which is taught as the will of God. Then they are addressing not only the supporters of same-sex marriage as now but also the many who oppose same-sex marriage, but who have adopted (by breathing in the American air) the new view that the institution of marriage is created by the personal vows and intentions of the persons married.
As they do this they need to speak up for CHILDREN and to state powerfully and clearly and often what are the rights of children required by man (in the various Charters and Laws) and moreso as required by God the LORD in terms of their being cared for from conception to adulthood. Then to link this to the Institution of Marriage.
At the same time, and in this context, they can accept that the modern State has given rights to homosexual persons and that these are to be accepted, but not to the extent of encouraging the blessing of same-sex couples as entering into a modern form of marriage and thereby undermining not only the biblical institution of Holy Matrimony but also the precious rights of babies and children to proper care.
Right now the negative side of the message about sexual morality is heard loudly and widely and so arises the charge of homophobia. Let us hear from the Archbishops of Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda more of the gracious provision of God of the institution of Holy Matrimony and of the rights of children to be raised in the fear and love of God by their biological parents.
I end on a positive note. Happily the Anglican Communion Network with Common Cause has accepted the BCP 1662 as its standard of doctrine and in this classic Prayer Book is the most widely accepted statement of the purpose of marriage in the Preface to the Service of Holy Matrimony. Here it is.
“Marriage is an ordered relation and honorable state instituted by God in the time before man and woman sinned. It signifies the mystical union between Christ and his
Church. Christ adorned and beautified this relation with both his presence and first miracle that he performed, at a marriage in Cana of Galilee. Further, it is
commended in Holy Scripture to be respected by all, and, therefore, it must not be entered upon, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, but reverently, discreetly,
advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the reasons for which marriage was ordained by God.
First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, it was ordained that the natural instincts and affections, implanted by God in man and woman, should be hallowed and directed aright.
Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual companionship, help, and comfort that husband and wife should provide for one another both in prosperity and adversity.
It is into this holy relation and state that these two persons come now to be joined. Therefore, if anyone can show any just cause why they may not be lawfully joined
together, let that person now speak….”
(For an excellent recent book on Marriage, read, David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, Encounter Books, NY 2007, and also those commended on page 3 in The Mandate at www.pbsusa.org )
Dr Peter Toon August 25 2007
In this short piece, I want to put forward the argument that the Anglican Global South leadership has not yet in its public statements shown that it understands fully what has happened in The Episcopal Church (and Canadian Church) in terms of innovations in sexual morality and church rites. And what it is not saying is crucially important.
Please be patient with me as I try to explain.
Let us accept that we live in a world where to affirm human dignity and to accept that human beings have rights (natural, civil and human) is an essential part of moral and political discourse. Each and every human being has the right to be treated with dignity and this includes—in all western nations—human beings who identify themselves as homosexual persons. And, let us not forget. it also includes babies and children!
Let me now propose that what is ultimately at issue—but rarely recognized—in the very modern debate concerning giving the legal right to two homosexual persons to marry each other in a civil ceremony (or in the church equivalent of this to be blessed by a Minister in a public service) is the following—the clashing of two agreed human rights.
One is the recently accepted right of the homosexual person to be treated with dignity and justly, and the other (set forth in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and in further Declarations & Conventions) is the right of a child wherever possible to be raised in a stable family by his/her biological parents.
What we see happening before our eyes is this: that once a State, or once a Church, begins effectively to define marriage in terms of the voluntary association of two persons for purposes, which they define themselves, and for as long as they determine, and that these purposes do not necessarily—where biologically possible—include the procreation and care of children, then what we call the institution of marriage has been drastically revised from what it has been in western culture for as long as there has been western culture. Indeed, as an ancient institution, marriage has been dissolved and in its place is the permission of the state for any two persons legally to form a partnership where most of the rules are created by the participants and where the state provides various benefits.
Today we may say that in western nations there are two basic kinds of marriage. The traditional one in church and culture is that the institution based upon vow and promise exists on its own independent of the couple and of the state. A man and a woman enter into an already existing institution which has it own meaning and purposes. In contrast, the modern one in church and culture is that the couple (of opposite or same sex) exist before the vow and promise, and they create the institution for themselves on their own terms (creating their own vows). In both cases the State regulates; but, while the traditional form of marriage existed before the State (John Locke the philosopher calls it “the first Society”), the modern form is a creation of the State through such legislation as no-fault divorce and licensing of same-sex couples.
Turning now to The Episcopal Church, one can say that beginning in 1973 when it dramatically changed its canon law on marriage and divorce, continuing with creating the new marriage service in the new prayer book of 1976/79 (where procreation and the raising of children is no longer presented as a basic purpose of marriage) and ending with the growing number of blessings of same-sex partners, this Church has drifted with modern culture towards the abandonment of the received Institution of Marriage, as that has been understood in church and state until very recent times.
Of course, there are Episcopalians who read and use the marriage service in the 1979 prayer book in traditional terms and, further, they believe that in marriage that they enter into an institution that existed before they married. However, in terms of the practical evidence of the life of the Episcopal Church, what one sees is the gradual and sure erosion of the traditional Institution of Marriage as that to which the Church holds and fosters, and in its place the acceptance of the new kind of marriage which is dependent upon the definitions of the State for its authenticity and which is defined by those entering into it in terms of its purpose and their mutual benefits.
Back to children! One of the major purposes of marriage over the centuries has been to raise, protect and educate children for life in society. In the modern situation of the letting go of the traditional view of marriage as an institution, whether we think of the effects in terms of the harm caused to children by the impact of divorce and remarriage, or by their being conceived in order to be adopted and raised by a same-sex couple, what we are aiding and abetting is the denial of the rights of children—their rights to be raised wherever possible by their biological parents, by their father and mother, in a stable environment. The way we are treating children is extremely bad and we do it in order to exalt the rights of adults to personal satisfaction and happiness.
To see all this, one does not need to read or cite one word of the Bible for it is clear to sociological and anthropological research. However, the Bible itself puts forth a very powerful doctrine of the institution of marriage which most regrettably many modern churches in the West have seriously undermined. And this undermining of Holy Matrimony is as much found with the conservatives as with the liberal progressives, but each side uses different ways and means to do the undermining (e.g. see how the divorce culture is absorbed by traditionalist bishops in continuing Anglican churches by giving annulments left, right and center, and especially to clergy!).
Enter the Global South
As I indicated in The Mandate (July-August 2007—read at www.pbsusa.org) I really think that the Global South has not yet awakened to the full story of what has happened to sexual morality in Episcopalianism. At this late hour, I believe that they would be well advised to make their message a positive one to America and Canada – restore the biblical institution of marriage, Holy Matrimony, as not only the ideal but also as that which is taught as the will of God. Then they are addressing not only the supporters of same-sex marriage as now but also the many who oppose same-sex marriage, but who have adopted (by breathing in the American air) the new view that the institution of marriage is created by the personal vows and intentions of the persons married.
As they do this they need to speak up for CHILDREN and to state powerfully and clearly and often what are the rights of children required by man (in the various Charters and Laws) and moreso as required by God the LORD in terms of their being cared for from conception to adulthood. Then to link this to the Institution of Marriage.
At the same time, and in this context, they can accept that the modern State has given rights to homosexual persons and that these are to be accepted, but not to the extent of encouraging the blessing of same-sex couples as entering into a modern form of marriage and thereby undermining not only the biblical institution of Holy Matrimony but also the precious rights of babies and children to proper care.
Right now the negative side of the message about sexual morality is heard loudly and widely and so arises the charge of homophobia. Let us hear from the Archbishops of Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda more of the gracious provision of God of the institution of Holy Matrimony and of the rights of children to be raised in the fear and love of God by their biological parents.
I end on a positive note. Happily the Anglican Communion Network with Common Cause has accepted the BCP 1662 as its standard of doctrine and in this classic Prayer Book is the most widely accepted statement of the purpose of marriage in the Preface to the Service of Holy Matrimony. Here it is.
“Marriage is an ordered relation and honorable state instituted by God in the time before man and woman sinned. It signifies the mystical union between Christ and his
Church. Christ adorned and beautified this relation with both his presence and first miracle that he performed, at a marriage in Cana of Galilee. Further, it is
commended in Holy Scripture to be respected by all, and, therefore, it must not be entered upon, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, but reverently, discreetly,
advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the reasons for which marriage was ordained by God.
First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, it was ordained that the natural instincts and affections, implanted by God in man and woman, should be hallowed and directed aright.
Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual companionship, help, and comfort that husband and wife should provide for one another both in prosperity and adversity.
It is into this holy relation and state that these two persons come now to be joined. Therefore, if anyone can show any just cause why they may not be lawfully joined
together, let that person now speak….”
(For an excellent recent book on Marriage, read, David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, Encounter Books, NY 2007, and also those commended on page 3 in The Mandate at www.pbsusa.org )
Dr Peter Toon August 25 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
1662 HC, traditional form, for USA use
The Common Cause Theological Statement accepted by the Anglican Communion Network includes acceptance of the Formularies of 1662.
Here without its Collects, Epistles and Gospels, and without its optional Exhortations is the Holy Communion Service from BCP 1662 adapted for a Republic.
The text is in Word rich format and is sent only for the sake of making known the content of this Order for Holy Communion, which is Reformed Catholic in content. There may be a few typos or minor errors in it despite careful proofreading.
Cambridge University Press of the UK has a new edition of 1662 available in a new font which may appeal more than does the old traditional font. This edition prays of course for the Monarch and Royal Family.
The AMiA of America is in the process of improving its trial liturgies of most of the services of BCP 1662 in contemporary language and this form of BCP 1662 should be generally available late in the Fall of 2007.
Edifying reading!
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
Here without its Collects, Epistles and Gospels, and without its optional Exhortations is the Holy Communion Service from BCP 1662 adapted for a Republic.
The text is in Word rich format and is sent only for the sake of making known the content of this Order for Holy Communion, which is Reformed Catholic in content. There may be a few typos or minor errors in it despite careful proofreading.
Cambridge University Press of the UK has a new edition of 1662 available in a new font which may appeal more than does the old traditional font. This edition prays of course for the Monarch and Royal Family.
The AMiA of America is in the process of improving its trial liturgies of most of the services of BCP 1662 in contemporary language and this form of BCP 1662 should be generally available late in the Fall of 2007.
Edifying reading!
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
President of the Prayer Book Society 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)