(Dear Friends around the Anglican Communion,
I have called for prayer for the next Archbishop because I believe that God's will is that he enters this Office in the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a new man in Christ Jesus. Here is a Collect for formal use in churches. PT)
Traditional form:
Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in thy providence hast established the ancient See of Canterbury as the primary instrument of unity of the Anglican Communion of Churches, we pray for the one whom thou has called, through imperfect processes, to be the next (104th) Archbishop of Canterbury. By the abundance of thy mercy, grant that he, repenting of his sins and conforming to thy holy law and wisdom, will enter into this holy office in the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of the same Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be ascribed glory and dominion now and for ever. Amen.
Contemporary form:
Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in your providence have established the ancient See of Canterbury as the primary instrument of unity of the Anglican Communion of Churches, we pray for the person you have called through imperfect human processes to be the next (104th) Archbishop of Canterbury. By the abundance of your mercy may he repent of his sins, conform to your holy law and wisdom and enter this holy office in the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of the same Lord Jesus Christ, your Son. To him, to you and to the Holy Spirit be given glory and praise by angels and humankind now and always. Amen.
July 21 2002
===
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Sunday, July 21, 2002
Saturday, July 20, 2002
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales
(As the Press and the e mail circuits continue to raise this and that probelm about Dr Rowan Williams I write the following after being in touch with him)
May I suggest that the way forward with regard to the probable appointment of Rowan Williams as the next Archbishop of Canterbury is:
NOT TO MOAN
NOT TO CRITICIZE THE MAN OR HIS VIEWS OF THE SYSTEM THAT APPOINTED HIM
NOT TO PROPHESY THE BREAK- UP OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION OVER HIS VIEWS
NOT TO SPECULATE AS TO WHAT HE WILL BE OR NOT BE OF WHAT HE WILL DO OR NOT DO
NOT TO THINK EVIL OF HIM
NOT TO ENCOURAGE ALL THE SPECULATION ABOUT HIM AND HIS VIEWS
but
TO GATHER FOR PRAYER
TO SET ASIDE DAYS OR HALF DAYS FOR PRAYER
TO ASK THE GOD AND FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST TO MINISTER TO ROWAN THAT HE WILL ENTER THE SEE IF THAT BE GOD'S SOVEREIGN WILL FILLED WITH THE GRACE AND WISDOM OF GOD THE HOLY TRINITY
I recall being told when I was a boy and living amongst the old-time Methodists in the Yorkshire Coalfield that if they heard that the Methodist Conference was sending to them a weak or liberal-minded Circuit Minister then they would go to prayer and not stop praying until the Spirit witnessed with their spirits that their prayers were heard on high! Then they got a Gospel man!
Rowan has asked me to ask those of us (and he includes me) who disagree with him to pray for him that he will be God's man, one that pleases the Lord and does His will.
I ask you therefore to PRAY without ceasing for him and for the See of Canterbury.
Let us join out prayers and offer them in the Name of the Lord Jesus, the High Priest, in and through whom, they will be purifed and heard by His Father, whom we also by grace call "Our Father..."
Thank you.
July 20, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
May I suggest that the way forward with regard to the probable appointment of Rowan Williams as the next Archbishop of Canterbury is:
NOT TO MOAN
NOT TO CRITICIZE THE MAN OR HIS VIEWS OF THE SYSTEM THAT APPOINTED HIM
NOT TO PROPHESY THE BREAK- UP OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION OVER HIS VIEWS
NOT TO SPECULATE AS TO WHAT HE WILL BE OR NOT BE OF WHAT HE WILL DO OR NOT DO
NOT TO THINK EVIL OF HIM
NOT TO ENCOURAGE ALL THE SPECULATION ABOUT HIM AND HIS VIEWS
but
TO GATHER FOR PRAYER
TO SET ASIDE DAYS OR HALF DAYS FOR PRAYER
TO ASK THE GOD AND FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST TO MINISTER TO ROWAN THAT HE WILL ENTER THE SEE IF THAT BE GOD'S SOVEREIGN WILL FILLED WITH THE GRACE AND WISDOM OF GOD THE HOLY TRINITY
I recall being told when I was a boy and living amongst the old-time Methodists in the Yorkshire Coalfield that if they heard that the Methodist Conference was sending to them a weak or liberal-minded Circuit Minister then they would go to prayer and not stop praying until the Spirit witnessed with their spirits that their prayers were heard on high! Then they got a Gospel man!
Rowan has asked me to ask those of us (and he includes me) who disagree with him to pray for him that he will be God's man, one that pleases the Lord and does His will.
I ask you therefore to PRAY without ceasing for him and for the See of Canterbury.
Let us join out prayers and offer them in the Name of the Lord Jesus, the High Priest, in and through whom, they will be purifed and heard by His Father, whom we also by grace call "Our Father..."
Thank you.
July 20, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Anglican Consultative Council's Director of Ecumenical Affairs to be new Suffragan Bishop
The Revd Canon David Hamid, 47, Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies for the Anglican Consultative Council since 1996, is to be the next Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese in Europe. He will take up his duties following his consecration by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops on 17 October in central London.
Born in Scotland to Scottish and Burmese parents, Canon Hamid has spent much of his ministry in Canada, and holds dual Canadian and British citizenship. He was rector of St John's Burlington, Ontario (1983-87), where he developed a mission congregation into a self-supporting parish.
For nearly ten years (1987-1996) he was one of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada's Regional Mission Co-ordinators. He worked to strengthen relationships between Canadian Anglicans and their Anglican and ecumenical partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. This included collaborating in practical programmes of evangelism, training, and youth ministry, as well as supporting mission partners in the field, developing policy and working on a range of international issues.
Since 1996 he has been the Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies for the Anglican Consultative Council, based in London, developing forward-moving relations both between world communions and more localised Church families, and resourcing ecumenical relations in the different dioceses and provinces of the Anglican Communion.
Canon Hamid has been secretary, member or consultant in many international ecumenical dialogues, including those with Baptist, Lutheran, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. He has also been a consultant to the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission and an ex-officio member of the Church of England's Faith and Order Advisory Group.
He has established good working relationships with many of the Diocese in Europe's partners in Continental Europe. He is a special advisor to the European Provincial Consultation set up at the request of the Lambeth Conference 1998. He is fluent in Spanish, Portuguese and French.
Canon Hamid said of his appointment, "As I look back on my ministry to date, I can see how, in so many ways, it may have been a preparation for what is coming, through my involvement with the Church's ecumenical life, the international and multicultural dimensions of her mission and ministry, developing and nurturing her work in places where Anglicans are clearly in the minority among other Christians. I am looking forward very much to the fresh challenges which this appointment brings, in getting to know the clergy and people of the diocese and to working with Bishop Rowell."
A keen traveller, David is married to Colleen (a research scientist at St Thomas' Hospital London) and has two sons, Jonathan (16) and Michael (12). He is a pianist, and music is one of his principal ways of relaxing.
For further information please contact:
Derek Williams
Diocesan Communications Officer
Tel: +44 1604 474799
Fax: +44 1604 474733
Mobile: + 447770 981172
Email: derek.williams2@ntlworld.com
Born in Scotland to Scottish and Burmese parents, Canon Hamid has spent much of his ministry in Canada, and holds dual Canadian and British citizenship. He was rector of St John's Burlington, Ontario (1983-87), where he developed a mission congregation into a self-supporting parish.
For nearly ten years (1987-1996) he was one of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada's Regional Mission Co-ordinators. He worked to strengthen relationships between Canadian Anglicans and their Anglican and ecumenical partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. This included collaborating in practical programmes of evangelism, training, and youth ministry, as well as supporting mission partners in the field, developing policy and working on a range of international issues.
Since 1996 he has been the Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies for the Anglican Consultative Council, based in London, developing forward-moving relations both between world communions and more localised Church families, and resourcing ecumenical relations in the different dioceses and provinces of the Anglican Communion.
Canon Hamid has been secretary, member or consultant in many international ecumenical dialogues, including those with Baptist, Lutheran, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. He has also been a consultant to the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission and an ex-officio member of the Church of England's Faith and Order Advisory Group.
He has established good working relationships with many of the Diocese in Europe's partners in Continental Europe. He is a special advisor to the European Provincial Consultation set up at the request of the Lambeth Conference 1998. He is fluent in Spanish, Portuguese and French.
Canon Hamid said of his appointment, "As I look back on my ministry to date, I can see how, in so many ways, it may have been a preparation for what is coming, through my involvement with the Church's ecumenical life, the international and multicultural dimensions of her mission and ministry, developing and nurturing her work in places where Anglicans are clearly in the minority among other Christians. I am looking forward very much to the fresh challenges which this appointment brings, in getting to know the clergy and people of the diocese and to working with Bishop Rowell."
A keen traveller, David is married to Colleen (a research scientist at St Thomas' Hospital London) and has two sons, Jonathan (16) and Michael (12). He is a pianist, and music is one of his principal ways of relaxing.
For further information please contact:
Derek Williams
Diocesan Communications Officer
Tel: +44 1604 474799
Fax: +44 1604 474733
Mobile: + 447770 981172
Email: derek.williams2@ntlworld.com
Thursday, July 18, 2002
Talk for BBC Radio
BBC Radio Stoke-on-Trent (brief talk given as part of the service of Ante-Communion recorded on July 18th at Christ Church, Biddulph Moor for broadcasting on Sunday July 21st Trinity VIII – only 30 mins available in all for the service)
=========
When we use the Book of Common Prayer, which is the primary prayer book of the Church of England, we address God the Father and Jesus Christ as Thou and Thee – e.g., “Thou art the King of glory” & “we beseech thee O Lord.” Did you realize that there are distinct devotional advantages in using this archaic form of the second person singular in the language of prayer and worship today, even in the third millennium?
Let us consider one advantage of this usage. The use of “Thee/Thou/Thy/Thine” enables us to combine in worship the sense of intimacy and communion with God with the sense of reverence and awe before God. Thereby humility and joy, trust and penitence are united in the soul and we can worship in the beauty of holiness.
First of all, let us look at reverence and awe. For centuries – and right up to the 1960s -- the only way that God was addressed in prayer and hymns in Great Britain in all churches was as “Thee/Thou.” In the general population, people used only “you” and so “thee/thou” became by the 18th century a religious form of speech and thereby achieved a special religious sense. Therefore there became attached to this usage over the centuries a sense of God’s holiness and apartness, with the profound feelings of reverence and awe.
As we pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done...”
Secondly, as a form of speech “Thee/Thou” is, as we all know, second person singular and traditionally is the pronoun used between intimates – members of a family for example. Now the Christian message is that God the Father has adopted us as His children in Jesus Christ. By the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts we are enabled to call him, Father. We pray “Our Father…” and as St Paul states, our hearts cry out, “Abba, Father” (= my Father). We are in the Family of God! Thus there is by divine grace and mercy an intimacy, communion and friendship between the baptized believing Christian and the God whom he calls Father. So the use of the second person singular, Thee/Thou, is a way through language to maintain and preserve this sense of intimacy.
As the Minister says in the administration of Holy Communion – “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.”
Reverence and intimacy, friendship and awe, are created in our souls and in the congregation by the grace of God, but they are best communicated in the traditional idiom of language of worship, that found in the King James Bible, The Book of Common Prayer and the Hymns of Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley.
Let us thank God for our heritage of prayer language and seek to worship Him in spirit and in truth, in penitence and in joy, in reverence and in friendship. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
=========
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of all our hearts be acceptable in thy sight, O God, our Father, for the sake of thy Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen
When we use the Book of Common Prayer, which is the primary prayer book of the Church of England, we address God the Father and Jesus Christ as Thou and Thee – e.g., “Thou art the King of glory” & “we beseech thee O Lord.” Did you realize that there are distinct devotional advantages in using this archaic form of the second person singular in the language of prayer and worship today, even in the third millennium?
Let us consider one advantage of this usage. The use of “Thee/Thou/Thy/Thine” enables us to combine in worship the sense of intimacy and communion with God with the sense of reverence and awe before God. Thereby humility and joy, trust and penitence are united in the soul and we can worship in the beauty of holiness.
First of all, let us look at reverence and awe. For centuries – and right up to the 1960s -- the only way that God was addressed in prayer and hymns in Great Britain in all churches was as “Thee/Thou.” In the general population, people used only “you” and so “thee/thou” became by the 18th century a religious form of speech and thereby achieved a special religious sense. Therefore there became attached to this usage over the centuries a sense of God’s holiness and apartness, with the profound feelings of reverence and awe.
As we pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done...”
Secondly, as a form of speech “Thee/Thou” is, as we all know, second person singular and traditionally is the pronoun used between intimates – members of a family for example. Now the Christian message is that God the Father has adopted us as His children in Jesus Christ. By the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts we are enabled to call him, Father. We pray “Our Father…” and as St Paul states, our hearts cry out, “Abba, Father” (= my Father). We are in the Family of God! Thus there is by divine grace and mercy an intimacy, communion and friendship between the baptized believing Christian and the God whom he calls Father. So the use of the second person singular, Thee/Thou, is a way through language to maintain and preserve this sense of intimacy.
As the Minister says in the administration of Holy Communion – “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.”
Reverence and intimacy, friendship and awe, are created in our souls and in the congregation by the grace of God, but they are best communicated in the traditional idiom of language of worship, that found in the King James Bible, The Book of Common Prayer and the Hymns of Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley.
Let us thank God for our heritage of prayer language and seek to worship Him in spirit and in truth, in penitence and in joy, in reverence and in friendship. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
On Style in Language addressed to Deity.
(a short tract to create godly thinking)
The move from addressing God as "Thee/Thou" to addressing Him as "You" may be simply a change in the word for the second person singular. And this is how modern liturgical experts want us to understand it. So they tell us that in the English-speaking world we have straight choice between "traditional language" and "contemporary language" and they say that the latter is much preferable.
But are they right? Yes and No. In part not in whole.
They are right only in that they recognize the difference between the second person singular and the second person plural and then the use in modern English of what used to be solely the second person plural as both second person singular and plural!
What they omit to recognize and tell is that with the use of the old form of the second person singular, "Thee/Thou," there comes a style, a context and an ethos. There is both the sense of intimacy with God as truly "our Father" because through Jesus Christ we know Him as "Father" (the Father of Jesus Christ, no less). And there is also, because of centuries of usage in public worship, a sense of reverence, awe and holiness so that He is "the holy Father." The archaic functions in a particularly religious way and for our benefit as believers.
So if I were to pray in sincerity "I love Thee, O Lord" the meaning would have its context in the style of English generated by the King James Version, the Book of Common Prayer and the Hymns of Wesley and Watts - that is, in the traditional English idiom of prayer. Thus it could not mean "love" as any merely emotional feeling or the modern being-in -love or homosexual attraction or liking someone. Rather it means a deep and profound sense of attachment to and wholesome trust in God as the Infinite and Eternal Deity, the Creator, Redeemer and Lord of all, who is made known in the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth. It is an enduring act of the will to do and to be unto God what He as God rightly deserves and commands.
However, if I were to pray "I love You, O Lord" the meaning would have as its context the use of love in modern English. This is because there has not yet developed a settled or coherent idiom of prayer using "You" to God. There have been many experiments since the 1960s and there are many going on at the beginning of the new millennium. Thus there is potentially a whole set of possible meanings and these depend upon the context from and in which we place this evocation of love. Is it love as we know it through the massive psychotherapeutical industry, or through Hollywood films, or as we seek to understand it through modern translations of the Bible?
The point is that "I love You, O Lord" does not easily and readily provide the meaning that is attached by context and long usage - by style - to "I love Thee, O Lord."
And if this general point is conceded then the possibility emerges that before the so-called contemporary language, that is being pressed upon the Church, can truly function as a godly means and instrument to leads us to the Holy One, the Blessed Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, it needs to have gained a context, a style that is worshipful and godly. Right now, it possesses potentially many contexts and styles and virtually of them are generated from the mindset, culture and ethos of what is termed post-modernity.
Therefore, it may not be so stupid after all for people - ordinary folks as well as academics -- to insist that they want to continue to worship the Lord our God using the classic idiom of prayer, as found in the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer.
July 17,2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
The move from addressing God as "Thee/Thou" to addressing Him as "You" may be simply a change in the word for the second person singular. And this is how modern liturgical experts want us to understand it. So they tell us that in the English-speaking world we have straight choice between "traditional language" and "contemporary language" and they say that the latter is much preferable.
But are they right? Yes and No. In part not in whole.
They are right only in that they recognize the difference between the second person singular and the second person plural and then the use in modern English of what used to be solely the second person plural as both second person singular and plural!
What they omit to recognize and tell is that with the use of the old form of the second person singular, "Thee/Thou," there comes a style, a context and an ethos. There is both the sense of intimacy with God as truly "our Father" because through Jesus Christ we know Him as "Father" (the Father of Jesus Christ, no less). And there is also, because of centuries of usage in public worship, a sense of reverence, awe and holiness so that He is "the holy Father." The archaic functions in a particularly religious way and for our benefit as believers.
So if I were to pray in sincerity "I love Thee, O Lord" the meaning would have its context in the style of English generated by the King James Version, the Book of Common Prayer and the Hymns of Wesley and Watts - that is, in the traditional English idiom of prayer. Thus it could not mean "love" as any merely emotional feeling or the modern being-in -love or homosexual attraction or liking someone. Rather it means a deep and profound sense of attachment to and wholesome trust in God as the Infinite and Eternal Deity, the Creator, Redeemer and Lord of all, who is made known in the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth. It is an enduring act of the will to do and to be unto God what He as God rightly deserves and commands.
However, if I were to pray "I love You, O Lord" the meaning would have as its context the use of love in modern English. This is because there has not yet developed a settled or coherent idiom of prayer using "You" to God. There have been many experiments since the 1960s and there are many going on at the beginning of the new millennium. Thus there is potentially a whole set of possible meanings and these depend upon the context from and in which we place this evocation of love. Is it love as we know it through the massive psychotherapeutical industry, or through Hollywood films, or as we seek to understand it through modern translations of the Bible?
The point is that "I love You, O Lord" does not easily and readily provide the meaning that is attached by context and long usage - by style - to "I love Thee, O Lord."
And if this general point is conceded then the possibility emerges that before the so-called contemporary language, that is being pressed upon the Church, can truly function as a godly means and instrument to leads us to the Holy One, the Blessed Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, it needs to have gained a context, a style that is worshipful and godly. Right now, it possesses potentially many contexts and styles and virtually of them are generated from the mindset, culture and ethos of what is termed post-modernity.
Therefore, it may not be so stupid after all for people - ordinary folks as well as academics -- to insist that they want to continue to worship the Lord our God using the classic idiom of prayer, as found in the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer.
July 17,2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
When and Why did English-speaking Christians change the language of prayer?
In 1900 in the English-speaking world all the Protestant Churches used a traditional form of English in their worship and prayers. Their approach and address to God in formal prayer, ex tempore prayer and hymnody used the second person singular (Thee/Thou) and all this seemed natural to them even though it was archaic because "You" had replaced "Thee/Thou" as the normal second person singular in everyday speech. Further, though the Roman Catholic Church services were virtually totally in Latin their private books of devotion and unofficial translations of the Mass were in traditional English, the English of the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer.
In 2000 all the major Protestant Churches in the English-speaking world used what is usually termed "contemporary English" to distinguish it from the "traditional English" used in worship for many previous centuries. Further, the Roman Catholic used the same type of modern English for the Mass and other forms of service. Only here and there did the tradition of the use of the inherited language persist (e.g., where the traditional Book of Common Prayer and the King James Version were used or where there were strict Presbyterians using classic 17th century forms). However, where the "contemporary English" was used there were exceptions made for using the Lord's Prayer in the traditional form and singing hymns that used "Thee/Thou."
Why did this revolution occur in the twentieth century rather than the nineteenth of the eighteenth centuries? This is a good question for, in those times, the use of "you" as the usual form of the second person singular was common and so it would not have been illogical or irrational to begin to use it when addressing God in worship. Yet this did not happen. Obviously the form of address using "Thee/Thou" was deeply embedded in religious expression and feeling for it was maintained without dissent.
Further, why did this revolution occur in the 1960s (using this expression to cover the late 1950s, the 1960s and the early 1970s) and not in the 1930s or the 1980s? Looking back we see clearly that it was in the 1960s that the new Bible translations, the new Liturgies and the new Hymnody using "contemporary language" began to appear and were adopted - often after much heart-searching - by the membership of the major Churches.
We must recognize that the answer to the question about timing must be in terms other than linguistic reasons for change. Languages do evolve naturally but this change was not a natural evolution. Thus the rapid move from the so-called traditional to the so-called contemporary is more likely to be explained in terms of religious, social and cultural factors and reasons.
Further, the answer will be more than the reasons given by those clergy and leaders who set the ball rolling in terms of the adoption of "contemporary" language in the 1960s. For example, the cry of evangelical Christians in America and Britain was for relevance. They wanted to have a relevant message with a relevant Bible using a relevant service in order to evangelise their fellow citizens. They stated that the "traditional language" did not and would not be effective to this end. In short, God and Christ would only become accessible to the majority if they were addressed as "You."
Reasons offered for new translations of the Bible (such as the New International Version), to replace the King James Version (as well as the Revised Version and the Revised Standard Version), were in terms of the availability of better manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, the archaic words of the old versions, and that no distinction was made in the original Hebrew or Greek between the addressing of a human being and offering prayer to God, in terms of the pronouns and verb forms used.
Young Protestant Ministers were taught that they could not trust the KJV for it was not an accurate translation of the originals; they needed a modern accurate version from which to preach to a generation young people who were rejecting the old ways. Further, young Anglican/Episcopal clergy were taught that the Book of Common Prayer was not based upon the best texts of the Bible in the original languages or the best understanding of the worship and doctrine of the Early Church. They needed not only an accurate version but also a modern version for leading the people in prayer.
At the same time, thousands of Roman Catholic parishes were using "contemporary" English for their Masses and the Roman Church was being shaken from top to bottom as it embraced aggiornamento (updating) and reaccentramento (recentering).
But underneath the call for relevance and the claims that better scholarship was being used for Bible translation and liturgical revision were other reasons, the underground springs that supplied the streams and lakes. There were the ideas and ideologies that made the 1960s into a period of major discontent, change and revolution in the western world and in America in particular. All who lived in this period breathed into their souls some of this new air and ferment. Even those who rebelled against the innovations
and changes of the time were affected by them!
In short, the revolutionary decade, which most remember in terms of campus unrest, of protests against the Viet Nam war, of loud music, of communes and of rapid social changes especially in civil rights, was based on (a) relativism in morals ("All you need is love") - thus situation ethics, (b) commitment to the New (thus ditching old ideas and ways), (c) religion as social activism (thus marches and picket lines), (d) pluralism and egalitarianism (thus variety taken as the norm and encouraged), (e) the irrelevancy of the Church as an institution (thus the emphasis on community [koinonia]), (f) theology expressed as psychology, anthropology and sociology and (g) a turn to the self (self-help, self-affirmation, self-discovery and self realization). To say all this is not to say that it was all bad. Rather, it is to say that the stage was set for changes in religion, churches, families, institutions, education, politics and so on. And changes did occur and few escaped them.
So we can say with confidence that the change in the way that English-speaking people addressed God was caused primarily by the revolution of the 1960s. Here a very long standing, profound, deep tradition, wherein were the treasures of English religious devotion of many centuries, was rapidly set aside in favour of the New (embracing the New was of course one of the themes of the 1960s).
Much that is holy and even unique was lost to the English-speaking peoples by this tremendous change in the way in which we stand before and address God. And also much that belonged to the revolutionary ideas of the 1960s was within the "contemporary" language as it was adapted for the public worship of God.
To this day English-speaking Christianity has not settled upon what exactly is the right form of "contemporary English" to be used in Christian worship. The abundance of Bible translations and liturgical styles and types of hymns & choruses testify still to the pluralism and subjectivism of the 1960s.
Thus, those who believe that they ought to continue to use the inherited, classical English form of prayer should be treated courteously and sympathetically by the majority in the Churches. Adequate space and time should be given to them so that they can worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness and preserve for generations to come the live tradition of classical and traditional worship of the Lord in English.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon July 17, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
In 2000 all the major Protestant Churches in the English-speaking world used what is usually termed "contemporary English" to distinguish it from the "traditional English" used in worship for many previous centuries. Further, the Roman Catholic used the same type of modern English for the Mass and other forms of service. Only here and there did the tradition of the use of the inherited language persist (e.g., where the traditional Book of Common Prayer and the King James Version were used or where there were strict Presbyterians using classic 17th century forms). However, where the "contemporary English" was used there were exceptions made for using the Lord's Prayer in the traditional form and singing hymns that used "Thee/Thou."
Why did this revolution occur in the twentieth century rather than the nineteenth of the eighteenth centuries? This is a good question for, in those times, the use of "you" as the usual form of the second person singular was common and so it would not have been illogical or irrational to begin to use it when addressing God in worship. Yet this did not happen. Obviously the form of address using "Thee/Thou" was deeply embedded in religious expression and feeling for it was maintained without dissent.
Further, why did this revolution occur in the 1960s (using this expression to cover the late 1950s, the 1960s and the early 1970s) and not in the 1930s or the 1980s? Looking back we see clearly that it was in the 1960s that the new Bible translations, the new Liturgies and the new Hymnody using "contemporary language" began to appear and were adopted - often after much heart-searching - by the membership of the major Churches.
We must recognize that the answer to the question about timing must be in terms other than linguistic reasons for change. Languages do evolve naturally but this change was not a natural evolution. Thus the rapid move from the so-called traditional to the so-called contemporary is more likely to be explained in terms of religious, social and cultural factors and reasons.
Further, the answer will be more than the reasons given by those clergy and leaders who set the ball rolling in terms of the adoption of "contemporary" language in the 1960s. For example, the cry of evangelical Christians in America and Britain was for relevance. They wanted to have a relevant message with a relevant Bible using a relevant service in order to evangelise their fellow citizens. They stated that the "traditional language" did not and would not be effective to this end. In short, God and Christ would only become accessible to the majority if they were addressed as "You."
Reasons offered for new translations of the Bible (such as the New International Version), to replace the King James Version (as well as the Revised Version and the Revised Standard Version), were in terms of the availability of better manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, the archaic words of the old versions, and that no distinction was made in the original Hebrew or Greek between the addressing of a human being and offering prayer to God, in terms of the pronouns and verb forms used.
Young Protestant Ministers were taught that they could not trust the KJV for it was not an accurate translation of the originals; they needed a modern accurate version from which to preach to a generation young people who were rejecting the old ways. Further, young Anglican/Episcopal clergy were taught that the Book of Common Prayer was not based upon the best texts of the Bible in the original languages or the best understanding of the worship and doctrine of the Early Church. They needed not only an accurate version but also a modern version for leading the people in prayer.
At the same time, thousands of Roman Catholic parishes were using "contemporary" English for their Masses and the Roman Church was being shaken from top to bottom as it embraced aggiornamento (updating) and reaccentramento (recentering).
But underneath the call for relevance and the claims that better scholarship was being used for Bible translation and liturgical revision were other reasons, the underground springs that supplied the streams and lakes. There were the ideas and ideologies that made the 1960s into a period of major discontent, change and revolution in the western world and in America in particular. All who lived in this period breathed into their souls some of this new air and ferment. Even those who rebelled against the innovations
and changes of the time were affected by them!
In short, the revolutionary decade, which most remember in terms of campus unrest, of protests against the Viet Nam war, of loud music, of communes and of rapid social changes especially in civil rights, was based on (a) relativism in morals ("All you need is love") - thus situation ethics, (b) commitment to the New (thus ditching old ideas and ways), (c) religion as social activism (thus marches and picket lines), (d) pluralism and egalitarianism (thus variety taken as the norm and encouraged), (e) the irrelevancy of the Church as an institution (thus the emphasis on community [koinonia]), (f) theology expressed as psychology, anthropology and sociology and (g) a turn to the self (self-help, self-affirmation, self-discovery and self realization). To say all this is not to say that it was all bad. Rather, it is to say that the stage was set for changes in religion, churches, families, institutions, education, politics and so on. And changes did occur and few escaped them.
So we can say with confidence that the change in the way that English-speaking people addressed God was caused primarily by the revolution of the 1960s. Here a very long standing, profound, deep tradition, wherein were the treasures of English religious devotion of many centuries, was rapidly set aside in favour of the New (embracing the New was of course one of the themes of the 1960s).
Much that is holy and even unique was lost to the English-speaking peoples by this tremendous change in the way in which we stand before and address God. And also much that belonged to the revolutionary ideas of the 1960s was within the "contemporary" language as it was adapted for the public worship of God.
To this day English-speaking Christianity has not settled upon what exactly is the right form of "contemporary English" to be used in Christian worship. The abundance of Bible translations and liturgical styles and types of hymns & choruses testify still to the pluralism and subjectivism of the 1960s.
Thus, those who believe that they ought to continue to use the inherited, classical English form of prayer should be treated courteously and sympathetically by the majority in the Churches. Adequate space and time should be given to them so that they can worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness and preserve for generations to come the live tradition of classical and traditional worship of the Lord in English.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon July 17, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Thursday, July 11, 2002
LOYALTY -- is it a virtue? (a discussion starter)
We are all familiar with the response of politicians to probing questions. Usually they reply in terms of party positions, not on a strictly moral or objective basis. Loyalty to the party is apparently considered as pre-eminent. And the same is often to be found within the highly developed denominationalism of the American religious supermarket. Loyalty to the denomination is seemingly considered as primary, come what may, and if one changes denominations, for whatever reasons, then loyalty to the new institution is called for and expected.
Loyalty is widely in the West proclaimed as a “value” and even a “virtue.”
BUT is LOYALTY a virtue? Or is it made to be so by moderns in order to justify a slavish following of the party line? Do we make it a virtue in order to cover with an air of respectability decisions and positions which are expedient and pragmatic?
Bertrand Russell, the famous philosopher and mathematician, is reputed to have said that “Loyalty is always evil.” I suggest that he was exaggerating but doing so to make a most valid point.
Loyalty is evil if any action is defended solely on the grounds of loyalty alone. Loyalty to the party, group, denomination or cause is evil unless it is truly believed by the loyal person that the party is truly acting for the good of humankind.
The evil consists in the pretending that mere party interest is the equivalent of the pursuit of the good. It is the presenting of that which to rational and moral consideration does not involve the pursuit of the good but the pursuit of gain for party and/or selfish reasons.
Thus, whenever loyalty is presented as a virtue & as the prime motive for any position or action, one needs to suspect that support is being sought for a bad or questionable cause and investigate.
Most of the time “loyalty is a sham virtue exploited to give a bogus moral flavour to amoral or immoral actions.”
Christians are not called to loyalty to any human institution or human persons but to wholehearted commitment to the Lord their God, to trust, love and obey Him and to pursue His will in their lives. Thus they submit to those above them in the Lord, precisely because they are submitting to the Lord and His ordering of the Church, and they are attached to Mother Church, precisely because she is the visible expression of the Household of God and Body of Christ. Here what may be called loyalty is justified for it is on behalf of the greatest good – the goodness of God the Father and God the Son. Likewise in Christian marriage the loyalty itself is not a virtue, it is what occurs when there is a commitment to the real virtues of chastity and faithfulness and so on.
Love - agape & caritas -- does not necessarily call for loyalty!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Loyalty is widely in the West proclaimed as a “value” and even a “virtue.”
BUT is LOYALTY a virtue? Or is it made to be so by moderns in order to justify a slavish following of the party line? Do we make it a virtue in order to cover with an air of respectability decisions and positions which are expedient and pragmatic?
Bertrand Russell, the famous philosopher and mathematician, is reputed to have said that “Loyalty is always evil.” I suggest that he was exaggerating but doing so to make a most valid point.
Loyalty is evil if any action is defended solely on the grounds of loyalty alone. Loyalty to the party, group, denomination or cause is evil unless it is truly believed by the loyal person that the party is truly acting for the good of humankind.
The evil consists in the pretending that mere party interest is the equivalent of the pursuit of the good. It is the presenting of that which to rational and moral consideration does not involve the pursuit of the good but the pursuit of gain for party and/or selfish reasons.
Thus, whenever loyalty is presented as a virtue & as the prime motive for any position or action, one needs to suspect that support is being sought for a bad or questionable cause and investigate.
Most of the time “loyalty is a sham virtue exploited to give a bogus moral flavour to amoral or immoral actions.”
Christians are not called to loyalty to any human institution or human persons but to wholehearted commitment to the Lord their God, to trust, love and obey Him and to pursue His will in their lives. Thus they submit to those above them in the Lord, precisely because they are submitting to the Lord and His ordering of the Church, and they are attached to Mother Church, precisely because she is the visible expression of the Household of God and Body of Christ. Here what may be called loyalty is justified for it is on behalf of the greatest good – the goodness of God the Father and God the Son. Likewise in Christian marriage the loyalty itself is not a virtue, it is what occurs when there is a commitment to the real virtues of chastity and faithfulness and so on.
Love - agape & caritas -- does not necessarily call for loyalty!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Wednesday, July 10, 2002
Is the same language appropriate for both Christian evangelism outside the Church in the world and worship by Christians in the Church
Is the same language appropriate for both (a) Christian evangelism outside the Church in the world and (b) worship by Christians in the Church of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost [Spirit]?
All Christians are called to engage in evangelism; and for some it is their primary vocation in life - they are evangelists. In evangelism the message is directed to those who have not been baptized in the Name of the Trinity, that is those who have not repented of their sins and believed on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and for a right relation with his Father. In order to be understood by such persons the content of the Gospel message has to be presented as clearly and simply as possible but without over simplifying, distorting or reducing its challenge.
Let us be clear that the Good News which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not sound like good news at first to the average westerner whose mind is heavily conditioned by materialism and secularism. Good News for him is in terms of good health, good living, good job, good holidays, good retirement and so on. It is only when his soul is not being satisfied by the this-worldly culture and recognizes its disordered state that he has any inclination to hear a message about the Creator of the Universe who is also its Judge and Saviour, and who offers him friendship and communion if he will repent and believe.
The Gospel primarily concerns that which is invisible and eternal, that which is transcendent and infinite, but yet that which can be glimpsed and tasted and experienced in part in the finite experience in this world, in anticipation of the fuoness of the age to come. Thus the evangelist has to go outside normal vocabulary and forms of expression to present a faithful account of the basic themes of, Who is God, Who is Jesus Christ, What is salvation, and how man is to respond to God's offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. Thus evangelism cannot be simply and only in the language used by a popular newspaper to describe political and sporting events. It requires an special vocabulary, as does for example computer usage.
Happily, the evangelist finds that within the English language there is a long tradition of words, phrases and expressions that have been tested in usage and are intimately connected with conversion to Christianity. At some time or another he has to use these and he may have to spend time in explaining the meaning of these words for without them he cannot teach people what it is that God graciously offers. If the evangelist seeks to avoid the use of these words and replace them with words that he sees as dynamic equivalents then he runs the danger that his hearers will understand these words according to their this-worldly sense. Thus there is a fine balance required between speaking in a way that people understand and doing justice to the unique content of the Gospel message.
When the seeker, the catechumen or the new believer is introduced by the evangelist to Christian worship in the Christian assembly, then, if that worship is true to its genius, there will be not only a very different ethos [= the beauty of holiness] than found anywhere else in the world, but there will be also the use of a specialized vocabulary (even also idiom & syntax). This will be so whether the form of English is "traditional" or "contemporary" (to use the descriptions of liturgists). Obviously the difference in the language of worship from the language of the media will be more apparent if the former is "traditional" (e.g., that of the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer); but even the "contemporary" contains words and phrases that are not in use elsewhere. [One may describe this "contemporary" language of prayer as a half-way house between the "traditional" and the language of popular journalism.]
So the language of evangelism is usually the language spoken by the people but refined because of the Subject matter [GOD] and requiring at some stage the use of specialized vocabulary to be true to this Subject, the Lord God. Then, the language of worship, for example the Order for Holy Communion [the Eucharist], whether in "traditional" or "contemporary" language form is not the language spoken by the people for it is a specialized language for a unique purpose. Where else do people speak of feeding upon a person's body and blood as their food?
This simple division between the language of evangelism and the language of common worship is often blurred today because church services are seen by some ardent clergy as opportunities of evangelism and so they wish them to be seeker-friendly. Thus they are addressed to men not to God! In these situations some Christians apparently get the opportunity or the experience to engage in sustained worship for a full hour - yet to enjoy and glorify God is their vocation and destiny.
When the service is a mixture of (a) evangelistic techniques based upon modern theories of communication along with (b) hymns and prayers that are in the form of Christians praising God or interceding for the world, then there can be confusion as to which language to use. Usually because the emphasis is upon relevance and acceptability, what may be called the vertical or the transcendent dimension gives way to the horizontal and to the immanent and so the ethos is not to too different from a stage show and the language is over simplified, adapted to the ends of easy understanding, and thus basically secular. Inevitably here whatever is taken to be the Gospel is somewhat less than or different from the Gospel that is preached in differing circumstances where the ethos is that of the vertical and transcendent and God is perceived as the holy Judge rather than the friendly Forgiver.
Today it is harder than ever, because of the character of the culture in which westerners live and breathe, to go into a holy place (church building) and prepare oneself to engage in communion with the Creator, Judge and Redeemer of mankind. Too many of us seem to enter into churches for a religious and communal experience that is primarily of this world and is not a journey to the gates of heaven. In these circumstances, it may well be that the revival of what may seem archaic and outdated in words and music - "the traditional" -- may be the most efficient means to help aspiring souls to reach toward God and heaven and to be prepared to respond to God's outreach to them. In fact, the traditional English language of prayer has within in, and associated with it, many rich themes of forms of speech and music which have proved their worth and power to lift aspiring souls high on their journey to meet with the Lord. Of course, this language, which has long been in the making and which has depth and quality, is not learned in one sitting; rather the experience of its use is such that it grows upon one as one recognizes that it is fulfilling its task of facilitating communion with the God of all grace, holiness and beauty.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
All Christians are called to engage in evangelism; and for some it is their primary vocation in life - they are evangelists. In evangelism the message is directed to those who have not been baptized in the Name of the Trinity, that is those who have not repented of their sins and believed on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and for a right relation with his Father. In order to be understood by such persons the content of the Gospel message has to be presented as clearly and simply as possible but without over simplifying, distorting or reducing its challenge.
Let us be clear that the Good News which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not sound like good news at first to the average westerner whose mind is heavily conditioned by materialism and secularism. Good News for him is in terms of good health, good living, good job, good holidays, good retirement and so on. It is only when his soul is not being satisfied by the this-worldly culture and recognizes its disordered state that he has any inclination to hear a message about the Creator of the Universe who is also its Judge and Saviour, and who offers him friendship and communion if he will repent and believe.
The Gospel primarily concerns that which is invisible and eternal, that which is transcendent and infinite, but yet that which can be glimpsed and tasted and experienced in part in the finite experience in this world, in anticipation of the fuoness of the age to come. Thus the evangelist has to go outside normal vocabulary and forms of expression to present a faithful account of the basic themes of, Who is God, Who is Jesus Christ, What is salvation, and how man is to respond to God's offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. Thus evangelism cannot be simply and only in the language used by a popular newspaper to describe political and sporting events. It requires an special vocabulary, as does for example computer usage.
Happily, the evangelist finds that within the English language there is a long tradition of words, phrases and expressions that have been tested in usage and are intimately connected with conversion to Christianity. At some time or another he has to use these and he may have to spend time in explaining the meaning of these words for without them he cannot teach people what it is that God graciously offers. If the evangelist seeks to avoid the use of these words and replace them with words that he sees as dynamic equivalents then he runs the danger that his hearers will understand these words according to their this-worldly sense. Thus there is a fine balance required between speaking in a way that people understand and doing justice to the unique content of the Gospel message.
When the seeker, the catechumen or the new believer is introduced by the evangelist to Christian worship in the Christian assembly, then, if that worship is true to its genius, there will be not only a very different ethos [= the beauty of holiness] than found anywhere else in the world, but there will be also the use of a specialized vocabulary (even also idiom & syntax). This will be so whether the form of English is "traditional" or "contemporary" (to use the descriptions of liturgists). Obviously the difference in the language of worship from the language of the media will be more apparent if the former is "traditional" (e.g., that of the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer); but even the "contemporary" contains words and phrases that are not in use elsewhere. [One may describe this "contemporary" language of prayer as a half-way house between the "traditional" and the language of popular journalism.]
So the language of evangelism is usually the language spoken by the people but refined because of the Subject matter [GOD] and requiring at some stage the use of specialized vocabulary to be true to this Subject, the Lord God. Then, the language of worship, for example the Order for Holy Communion [the Eucharist], whether in "traditional" or "contemporary" language form is not the language spoken by the people for it is a specialized language for a unique purpose. Where else do people speak of feeding upon a person's body and blood as their food?
This simple division between the language of evangelism and the language of common worship is often blurred today because church services are seen by some ardent clergy as opportunities of evangelism and so they wish them to be seeker-friendly. Thus they are addressed to men not to God! In these situations some Christians apparently get the opportunity or the experience to engage in sustained worship for a full hour - yet to enjoy and glorify God is their vocation and destiny.
When the service is a mixture of (a) evangelistic techniques based upon modern theories of communication along with (b) hymns and prayers that are in the form of Christians praising God or interceding for the world, then there can be confusion as to which language to use. Usually because the emphasis is upon relevance and acceptability, what may be called the vertical or the transcendent dimension gives way to the horizontal and to the immanent and so the ethos is not to too different from a stage show and the language is over simplified, adapted to the ends of easy understanding, and thus basically secular. Inevitably here whatever is taken to be the Gospel is somewhat less than or different from the Gospel that is preached in differing circumstances where the ethos is that of the vertical and transcendent and God is perceived as the holy Judge rather than the friendly Forgiver.
Today it is harder than ever, because of the character of the culture in which westerners live and breathe, to go into a holy place (church building) and prepare oneself to engage in communion with the Creator, Judge and Redeemer of mankind. Too many of us seem to enter into churches for a religious and communal experience that is primarily of this world and is not a journey to the gates of heaven. In these circumstances, it may well be that the revival of what may seem archaic and outdated in words and music - "the traditional" -- may be the most efficient means to help aspiring souls to reach toward God and heaven and to be prepared to respond to God's outreach to them. In fact, the traditional English language of prayer has within in, and associated with it, many rich themes of forms of speech and music which have proved their worth and power to lift aspiring souls high on their journey to meet with the Lord. Of course, this language, which has long been in the making and which has depth and quality, is not learned in one sitting; rather the experience of its use is such that it grows upon one as one recognizes that it is fulfilling its task of facilitating communion with the God of all grace, holiness and beauty.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Tuesday, July 09, 2002
TRINITY VII: MEDITATION on the Collect, Epistle & Gospel
Once again the Bible Readings and Prayer for this week call those who consider themselves to be the people of God to live as the genuine, true and authentic people of God in holiness and righteousness of life in this world, as those whose final and true citizenship is in heaven & in the age to come.
The EPISTLE (Romans 6:19-23) is a call from the apostle Paul to Christians to be true servants (literally slaves) of God the Father, serving the Master (Jesus Christ) faithfully in righteousness and purity of life. Certainly the Church of God has been redeemed, bought with a price, the sacrificial blood of Jesus, and belongs to the Father Almighty. Thus to live in sin and without repentance and forgiveness is to be disobedient slaves and to invite the wrath of the Master/Owner. But to live by faith in faithfulness and holiness is to look for "the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
The GOSPEL (Mark 8:1-8) presents the feeding of the hungry multitude (4000) by the Lord Jesus on territory which had a mixed Jewish-Gentile population (on the eastern shore of Lake Gennesaret). Thus we may say that it points symbolically to the provision that God the Father through Jesus Christ makes for the union and unity of Jew and Gentile in the kingdom of God and in His Church and also for their spiritual nourishment unto eternal life. The fact that there were seven large baskets of food left over, when all had eaten, points to the abundance of grace within the Gospel of the Father and the Son which is addressed to all peoples, first to the Jew and then to the Gentiles till the end of time. As we learn from John 6, Jesus himself is the Bread of life upon whom we all feed and to receive bread blessed and given by him is to feed on him in our hearts by faith and with thanksgiving, unto eternal life.
Soon after New Testament times the Church, which celebrated the Eucharist each Lord's Day, developed a symbolism from the fish that Jesus blessed and magnified in this miracle and in other similar ones (cf. Mark 6:32-44). In Greek the word for fish is IXTHUS and this was seen to form an acrostic "Jesus Christ Son of God, Saviour" (from the Greek words Iesous Christos Theos Uios Soter).
The COLLECT is a free translation by Archbishop Cranmer of an original Latin Collect. Seemingly James 1:17 is much in mind --- "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." In this Prayer, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is addressed as "LORD of all power and might". He is the Almighty, omnipotent and All-Powerful Deity. And as such, and also being the Compassionate One, he is the both the origin and giver of all that is good for us and for all men. And, changing our the mental image of God's relation to us, we go on to say that, like the best farmer, God the Father plants, watches over and cares for good seed so that it grows abundantly unto harvest. So we pray that our hearts and lives shall be the field wherein God himself plants the seeds of true Faith, Hope and Charity and then brings these seeds to full fruition so that by our lives we praise and magnify his Name.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
The EPISTLE (Romans 6:19-23) is a call from the apostle Paul to Christians to be true servants (literally slaves) of God the Father, serving the Master (Jesus Christ) faithfully in righteousness and purity of life. Certainly the Church of God has been redeemed, bought with a price, the sacrificial blood of Jesus, and belongs to the Father Almighty. Thus to live in sin and without repentance and forgiveness is to be disobedient slaves and to invite the wrath of the Master/Owner. But to live by faith in faithfulness and holiness is to look for "the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
The GOSPEL (Mark 8:1-8) presents the feeding of the hungry multitude (4000) by the Lord Jesus on territory which had a mixed Jewish-Gentile population (on the eastern shore of Lake Gennesaret). Thus we may say that it points symbolically to the provision that God the Father through Jesus Christ makes for the union and unity of Jew and Gentile in the kingdom of God and in His Church and also for their spiritual nourishment unto eternal life. The fact that there were seven large baskets of food left over, when all had eaten, points to the abundance of grace within the Gospel of the Father and the Son which is addressed to all peoples, first to the Jew and then to the Gentiles till the end of time. As we learn from John 6, Jesus himself is the Bread of life upon whom we all feed and to receive bread blessed and given by him is to feed on him in our hearts by faith and with thanksgiving, unto eternal life.
Soon after New Testament times the Church, which celebrated the Eucharist each Lord's Day, developed a symbolism from the fish that Jesus blessed and magnified in this miracle and in other similar ones (cf. Mark 6:32-44). In Greek the word for fish is IXTHUS and this was seen to form an acrostic "Jesus Christ Son of God, Saviour" (from the Greek words Iesous Christos Theos Uios Soter).
The COLLECT is a free translation by Archbishop Cranmer of an original Latin Collect. Seemingly James 1:17 is much in mind --- "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." In this Prayer, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is addressed as "LORD of all power and might". He is the Almighty, omnipotent and All-Powerful Deity. And as such, and also being the Compassionate One, he is the both the origin and giver of all that is good for us and for all men. And, changing our the mental image of God's relation to us, we go on to say that, like the best farmer, God the Father plants, watches over and cares for good seed so that it grows abundantly unto harvest. So we pray that our hearts and lives shall be the field wherein God himself plants the seeds of true Faith, Hope and Charity and then brings these seeds to full fruition so that by our lives we praise and magnify his Name.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Letter from the Bishop of Kansas
Comment: ( A LETTER FROM THE EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF KANSAS USA ON HOW HE JUSTIFIES BLESSINGS OF SAME SEX PARTNERS....ONCE THE TRUTH IS ACCEPTED MERELY AS A TRUTH FOR ME THEN ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE FOR TRUTH IS FOR FOR ME IN MY SITUATION, IN MY SUBJECTIVITY) --Peter Toon
THE RT, REV. WLLIAM E. SMALLEY
TELEPHONE: (786) 235-9256 BISHOP
FAX: (785) 235-2449
June 13, 2002
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I am authorizing the blessing of persons living in committed relationships other than Holy Matrimony on a limited basis in the Diocese of Kansas. I want to state clearly that this is NOT to be a substitute for Holy Matrimony, or even to resemble Holy Matrimony. It is simply extending the blessing of people's lives to those who have not been able to fully receive this.
The enclosed policy explains how this will be done. This policy was shared with the Council of Trustees this week, but comes solely from me as Bishop. The policy does not apply to my successor as Bishop of Kansas unless he or she wishes to continue it or amend it.
I suggest that this letter and policy be shared and discussed by the parish leadership prior to any parish-wide discussion.
The policy is stated in terms that are necessarily somewhat legalistic. I want to tell you of my journey to this decision in more personal terms.
I begin where the Church does, on the "sanctity of marriage." Carole and I have been married for almost 38 years, beginning our life together with the blessing of the Church on our new life together. The Church has continued to bless and feed us in our life together, offering us the prayerful support of loving community. We have honored the vows we made and have grown in our love and faith, in large part because of the Church's blessing and support.
I see the blessing of lives as a key part of the life of the Christian community, going back to our earliest roots. We like Abraham and Sarah are people blessed by God so that we might be a blessing to others. All of our lives are marked by blessings, with the liturgies of The Book of Common Prayer and The Book of Occasional Services filled with opportunities for blessing.
We have people in our parish communities who have not been able to fully enjoy the blessing of their lives. Among these persons are heterosexual couples for whom Holy Matrimony is not a possibility because it would mean financial loss, and even the inability to support themselves. This happens for many through, for example, loss of a deceased spouse's pension. Others are homosexual couples living in committed relationships but unable to receive the blessing of the Church on their lives and relationships.
I know many of these people, as you do, and have shared in their lives and the hospitality of their homes. I have also experienced their pain over the fact that they cannot receive the blessing of the Church on their relationships, and often not even share the joys and pains of their life with a Christian community. They do not have what Carole and I and so many others couples in the Church enjoy, the Church's full blessing of their lives.
I come to my decision in part out of pastoral care for these people, but also because of the example I see in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Jesus in his Incarnation cared deeply for all people, and had a special care for those who were denied the fullness of life. Jesus taught that all persons were God's "beloved" children. The Church, the "Body of Christ," is called to continue the ministry of the Incarnation. Our "Baptismal Covenant" underlines this in our pledge to "seek and serve Christ in all persons." A part of this is the welcoming of all people fully into our life as a Church, affirming their human dignity, and sharing with them in the blessing of the Church on their lives.
The enclosed policy opens the possibility for this.
It should be noted, however, that while this policy is available for use in all Congregations of the Diocese of Kansas, it will only be applicable in Congregations where the leadership in the persons of the Rector and Vestry choose to submit a plan for my approval.
I am most willing to discuss this policy with any of you, your Vestries, or members of your parishes.
I ask for your prayers for me and for this Diocese and its Congregations.
Faithfully yours,
William E. Smalley
Bishop
As people called to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves, the mission of the Diocese of Kansas is to Equip, Send, and Nurture disciples of Jesus Christ.
DIOCESE OF KANSAS
BETHANY PIACE
835 S.W. POLK STREET
TOPEKA, KANSAS
66612-1688
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)