Expulsion from and entry into the Anglican Communion.

I respond to several questions put to me on this matter, by setting out what I believe to be the case. I am open to correction on all points.

1. While it is true that the Bishop of any Diocese or the Bishops of any Province of the Anglican Communion [outside of the Church of England] can determine not to be in communion with a given Bishop or a group of Bishops or all the Bishops of a province, no province or group of provinces or meeting of representatives of provinces can decide the membership of the Anglican Communion of Churches.

2. The Anglican Communion of Churches is made up of those Provinces with whose Primate and Bishops the Archbishops of Canterbury & York, and primarily Canterbury, state they are in communion and recognize them as true bishops in apostolic orders and as holding to a common apostolic Faith. No other authority can say and do this.

3. From the perspective of the Mother Church of the Communion, the C of E, the nature of the Anglican Communion as an informal family or federation or grouping of autonomous provinces is set out in Halsbury 14, Ecclesiastical Law, at s.313. It refers to the Overseas and other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967, which sets out the procedures whereby a church is recognised as being in communion with the Church of England. See sections 3, 4 (1), and 6 (2).

In particular note s.6 (2):

"If any question arises whether, for the purposes of this Measure, a Church is in Communion with the Church of England or whether the Orders of any Church are recognised and accepted by the Church of England, it shall be determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, whose decision shall be conclusive."

4. Thus it is clear that no majority vote of Primates and no majority votein the Anglican Consultative Council and no majority vote in the LambethConference has any other force than advisory to the English Primates ofCanterbury & York. In this matter, it seems that the A of Cant is truly and really a Pope!

5. If the ECUSA is to be disciplined by temporary expulsion from the Anglican Family and its Primate not invited to the Primates' Meeting, its bishops not invited to the Lambeth Conference and its representatives not invited to the Anglican Consultative Council, then that decision has to be and can only be made by the two English Primates, that is by Canterbury as advised by and working with York. Votes here and there calling for such or advising against it have only the force of moral suasion and practical advice.

6. Thus we need to pray earnestly for the English Archbishops and for all the other 37 Primates who will gather on October 15/16 in London to take counsel together and to advise Dr Rowan Williams, with whom is the final word.

Here is the Collect [rendered into the classic language of prayer by me] that was put out by the Director of the Office of the Anglican Communion:

"O God our heavenly Father, who hast called us, as members of the Body of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to continue his work of reconciliation and evangelisation amongst men: Forgive us the sins which tear us apart; and give us the courage to overcome our fears and to seek that unity which is thy gift and thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

---

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

Prayer for Primates

(Here is a copy of Letter I sent to the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion - a title which I do not like and do not think is appropriate for it sounds as though he is the chief executive officer of a corporation rather than the head of an office in London. I do support heartily his call to prayer and this is why I have rendered his collect into a form acceptable to those who a. use the classic language of prayer, and b. do not believe we should dare to begin prayers by telling God what he should know!)

Dear Canon Peterson,

Thank you for putting out a call for prayer for the important Primates Meeting to occur in mid October.

As a good number of those who are praying for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 37 other Primates use the classic language of prayer when they address our heavenly Father, I have taken the liberty of rendering your prayer into that language. I know that not a few of the African Primates learned their Anglican Faith from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and when they pray in English that style is also their style.

Here is your notice & prayer with my rendering attached.


ACNS 3567 | ACO | 3 SEPTEMBER 2003

Call to Prayer: The Primates Meeting 2003 London

The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, the Revd Canon John L. Peterson, encourages churches of our Communion to use this prayer in the days coming up to the October 15/16 Primates Meeting:

"Heavenly Father, you have called us in the Body of your Son Jesus Christ to continue his work of reconciliation and reveal you to humankind. Forgive us the sins which tear us apart; give us the courage to overcome our fears and to seek that unity which is your gift and your will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

---

"O God our heavenly Father, who hast called us, as members of the Body of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to continue his work of reconciliation and evangelisation amongst men: Forgive us the sins which tear us apart; and give us the courage to overcome our fears and to seek that unity which is thy gift and thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

---

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

Inward purity & outward dress

Does it matter how we dress for worship?

Not too long ago, it was commonly held within all Christian denominations, from Orthodox through Roman Catholic to Baptist, that anyone going to a church service on Sunday should put on his best clothing (or at least his good clothing) for he was meeting not a human king or a human president, but the King of the kings and the Lord of the lords and the President of the presidents, even the Lord God, the Blessed Trinity. And "best" or "good" dress was defined in cultural terms as what was appropriate when meeting someone of great importance.

So one did not go to church on the Lord's Day in one's work clothing or in one's leisure attire. Along with this dress code, the basic affection of the soul that was seen as appropriate in entering the house of the Lord was "the fear of the Lord" (a sense of reverence and awe and sinfulness before the Infinite and Eternal, Holy God), for the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom.

Today, semi-casual or even casual clothing are the norm in many denominations from Orthodox through Roman Catholic to Baptist, and "the fear of the Lord" has generally been replaced by "wanting a relationship with the Lord and [perhaps] with all [or some of those] who gather" (thus the spread of "the passing of the peace" or "the greeting" in the services of virtually all American denominations since the 1970s).

One can challenge this description claiming that the difference between 1950 and 2000 is not so marked. Yet any churchgoer who is 60 or more will be able to verify it, at least in general terms from personal observation.

But why this change in dress code and general attitude? One can offer all kinds of answers related to changing social and cultural mores, changing liturgical fashions, changing doctrinal teaching and a felt, greater sense of personal freedom and autonomy. But what seems to make sense, because we are beings with soul and body, is that there is a vital connection with what is believed, taught and confessed and how one dresses for worship and how one perceives and describes worship.

The move from dressing in one's best clothing to dressing in one's leisure or semi-formal clothing seems to be an outward and visible change of an inward disposition or attitude. Apparently the general perception of God, his nature, character & attributes, has changed and so has the sense of the place of a human being before him. Today we seem to think that we can easily enter the presence of God for he is the Friendly One who welcomes us just as we are. He is always ready to have "a relationship" with us. Yesterday, we apparently thought that to seek to enter the presence of God was an awesome calling, requiring reverence and penitence and that if He did establish a relation with us it was one of sovereign mercy.

The Lord's Day is not merely special, it is unique, for it is the weekly festival of the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Perhaps we should dress in an appropriate manner to celebrate the uniqueness of the Saviour and the Day!


The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

In the Beauty of Holiness

The appropriate use of the BCP

If an Anglican Church wants to make sure that it believes, teaches and confesses right doctrine it will do well to use The Book of Common Prayer (1662 or another classic edition - e.g. the American 1928) regularly. For in this book is that form of sound teaching that is known as The Reformed Catholic Faith and this teaching permeates each of the services. And this Anglican Form of Doctrine is solidly based upon Scripture as this inspired Canon of Two Testaments has been received and interpreted in the Church, especially in the Early Church during the period of the first four (and even) seven ecumenical councils.

No such clarity of doctrine is to be found in any of the modern "Books of Alternative Services", including either the 1979 ECUSA Prayer Book or the Common Worship (2000) of the Church of England. In fact for them to be truly useful for right doctrine and godliness, they need to be used in the light of the doctrinal standards found in the historic BCP.

But to have right theology and to confess sound doctrine is not enough, in fact it is only part of the beginning of what The Book of Common Prayer is all about. This classic collection of set texts for corporate prayer exists to bring God's people in penitence and faith through Jesus Christ, the Mediator, and by the Holy Ghost, to the Father, as his faithful, adoring children. It exists to enable repentant, believing sinners to worship the Holy Trinity in the beauty of holiness, separated from the world, as they look unto Jesus, the author and the finisher of their salvation.

Further, it exists to provide a daily discipline of praise and thanksgiving, confession and petition, intercession and supplication so that God's people remain in communion with their Lord as they go about their daily lives. And the fact that this historic Prayer Book is written in the classic language of prayer and public worship makes it the more useful for the vocation of drawing away from the world and near unto the Lord to seek his face and know his will.

To use The Book of Common Prayer because it seems to confirm & express social conservatism (be it the Tory kind in the UK or the Republican kind in the USA) is really to miss the point of the Book, its content and its use. It exists to make people holy, to bring a people in worship unto the heavenly kingdom where they shall be lost in wonder, love and praise as they enjoy the Beatific Vision. It exists for the full and final salvation of the elect of God.

---

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

More on "Common Worship Considered"

Friends,

If you have ADOBE please look at this advert for my forthcoming book COMMON
WORSHIP CONSIDERED: A LITURGICAL JOURNEY EXAMINED. As far as I know it is
the first book length critique of the new collection/directory for punblic
worship in the Church of England. It is a gentle but firm critique and it
also has relevance to the Episcopal Church which is now calling its growing
collection of services by the name "Common Worship."

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

New Book: COMMON WORSHIP CONSIDERED

(Note: the expression Common Worship is now favoured also by the Liturgy & Music Commission of the ECUSA for its developing and forthcoming Collection of Liturgies.... Please send this advert on to your Anglican friends.)

---

from Edgeways Books of the UK

COMMON WORSHIP CONSIDERED
A Liturgical Journey Examined

Peter Toon

Common Worship is the name given by the Church of England to her replacement for The Alternative Service Book of 1980. It is a multi-volume, multi-media and open-ended series of publications and, being so vast, is not easily considered. In this, the first book-length discussion of Common Worship, Dr Toon makes a notable effort to do so.

The multi-volume collection of Liturgy is considered steadily and thoroughly in chapters on the Preface, the meaning of “Common” and “Worship”, the Eucharist, Daily Prayer, Baptism & Confirmation, Pastoral Services, Prayers & Collects, Doctrine & Style. A brief Epilogue draws conclusions, solidly based on the preceding argument, which may be surprising.

The present liturgists of the Church of England are in intention far less revolutionary than their predecessors a quarter of a century ago. But the drastic redefinition of “common” made necessary by the Common Worship project—so that what is common to the Church of England is not the sharing of one printed liturgy but the use of common shapes, the following of guidelines or the use of an incalculable number of permutations—amounts to a more revolutionary change than any since the Prayer Book of 1549.

Dr Toon demonstrates that such a huge outpouring of optional material has, not surprisingly, led to rather low standards of composition and of theological accuracy.

This moderate and well—argued book is written from the standpoint of an orthodox theologian and a faithful parish priest of the Church of England. Dr. Toon’s criteria are those that have always been accepted in the Church of England: the Bible, the three Creeds and the formularies printed within The Book of Common Prayer (1662). One upshot of the book is a further demonstration that The Book of Common Prayer is (in the title of another recent book of which Dr Toon is co—author) “neither archaic nor obsolete”.

160 pp. royal 8vo hard covers publishers recommended price £16.80.

ISBN 0 907839 78 9 publication September 2003

All Edgeways books can be ordered direct from the publisher and delivered post free anywhere in the world. Airmail delivery add £5.00.

Secure credit card orders – www.edgwaysbooks.com

By post: Edgeways Books, 6 Greencroft Avenue, Corbridge, Northumberland, England, NE45 5DW

The book, Neither Archaic nor Obsolete: The Language of Common Prayer & Public Worship, by Dr Toon and Dr Tarsitano (ISBN 0 907839 75 4) is paperback and available from the Prayer Book Society of the USA (www.anglicanmarketplace.com) or Edgeways Books. For help in ordering in the USA call toll free 1 800 PBS 1928.

---

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

Establishing a SURE foundation for PECUSA revived

Adelphoi,

A word for those with ears to hear (or with eyes to read!)

In the fall-out in American Episcopalianism, following the vote for the confirmation of Canon Gene Robinson, certain things are becoming clear. To attend to them will not be easy or painless. Yet they need to be done by those Americans who intend to stay within the Anglican Communion of Churches if major mistakes of the past are not to be continued or repeated.

If certain dioceses are to leave the ECUSA, and together with certain parishes from other dioceses form a kind of continuing Protestant Episcopal Church USA [restoring the proper and older name/title of the Episcopal Church] then they will have many things to do and to become. I bring attention to what I think is a primary rather than a secondary action.

The Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA was committed to the sacred Scriptures and the Creeds, and she was based upon Three Formularies - the classic Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1928), the Ordinal & the Articles (both the latter bound inside the Prayer Book) - and all this was set out in her Constitution and Canon Law.

If there is to be any genuine reform of parts of the present ECUSA then for it be Biblical, Orthodox and truly Anglican the foundation of the PECUSA must be restored as a first duty and necessity. The foundation established by the ECUSA in 1976/79 has to be set aside as one of the major causes of the present crisis. There has to be repentance by all who have lived within this arrangement and sphere.

Then what of the 1979 Prayer Book. Easy! Let it be what its equivalent is in Canada, A Book of Alternative Services, or what it was in England until 2000, Alternative Services Book. Let it be called "An American Prayer Book, 1979" or something similar and then it can be used, but used circumspectly not standing alone as it now does as its own authority, but standing under the doctrine that is set forth in the classic Formularies.

Not to do this and to regard the present 1979 book as a sure foundation and formulary will be to carry over into the reforming movement the major errors of that from which it is separating! The problem is not getting away from homosexuality as such; but, it is finding the living God and having a right relation with Him, a relation that has a proper doctrinal foundation and has right thinking on worship, morality and discipline.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

The Peace. What is it?

Adelphoi,

In response to those asking for more information on the Pax, I offer the following for consideration:

The Peace. What is it?

In the search for the meaning of the innovation of "The Peace", introduced into liturgies after the 1960s, one looks for authoritative statements from Anglican sources. One such is apparently provided in the Canadian "Book of Alternative Services" (BAS) of 1985 on page 177.

"The Peace is an encounter, a reconciliation and an anticipation."

As an encounter, we are told, it is a meeting of Christ through others for "without that encounter we cannot meet God".

As a reconciliation it dramatizes the injunction of Matthew 5:23-24 where we are told to leave our gift at the altar and first be reconciled with our brother before actually offering the gift.

As an anticipation it dramatizes the Eucharist as a foretaste of the banquet in heaven by expressing peace and unity.

Finally we are told that "the style of greeting encouraged should be consistent with the sensibilities of those present".

Comment.

The first point about encounter is not true or at least it is an exaggeration. God can surely come to us and we can meet him without greeting others first.

On reconciliation - Certainly, as is urged in the Exhortations within the Holy Communion Service in the classic Book of Common Prayer one ought to be in a right relation with others before coming to the Table. Whether this can be achieved in public view in a short minute or two in a service is questionable, for one may not be physically near them and the church may be full. Better to see them beforehand or afterwards, and if afterwards forgo taking H C.

On anticipation, it is possible that a devoutly reverent method of expressing a sign of peace one to another will be felt to be an experience of the SHALOM of the kingdom of God. However, it is difficult to understand how the common walkabout and hugging speak of that future unity where our bodies will be spiritual and immortal, wholly reverent and perfectly joyful.

These three themes sound good, can be good, but hardly fit what is possible and what goes on in most parishes in Canada or the USA or the UK.

It is seemingly impossible to recreate today what the apostles intended when they wrote, "Greet the brethren with a holy kiss."

Best to make people feel welcome at the door and as they leave show appreciation of them and also invite them to fellowship meetings midweek or after the Divine Liturgy. Let the Holy Kiss be used (as in Greek Orthodoxy) where possible and desired by the Priest & deacon at the Holy Table and let them do it on behalf of all present!

(The explanation offered by Hatchett in his Commentary on the 1979 Prayer Book on page 345 does not really help us forward at all. Apparently this gesture was never fully explained when it was introduced as an innovation and it has got out of hand so that no one knows any more why it was so necessary to have introduced it at all from the 1970s in the West. Liturgists thought that they had discovered something that would be beneficial and so they put it into all the new services and there it remains being interpreted in a variety of ways and means around the world.)

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

The Interpretative Key to the 1979 Prayer Book & later ECUSA Liturgies

It is most significant that the first item in Common Worship, the new Directory of Services for the Church of England, is not a whole Liturgy as such, but rather a List of the items that should be within "A Service of the Word" and "A Service of the Word with a Celebration of Holy Communion". By this placement, the doctrine that in the Church of England "common worship" means a common structure with optional and varied content is proclaimed loud and clear.

As can be seen from a perusal of the actual content of The Book of Common Prayer (England 1662; USA 1928) and by noting of the use of "Common Prayer" in the English language since the sixteenth century, the phrase, Common Prayer, has referred, and truly refers, first and foremost to texts, whole texts, wherein there are only a limited number of occasions for choice between canticles and collects. For a time modern liturgists tried to pirate "Common Prayer" and use it of their varied collections of services [the most notorious is the actual title of the 1979 Prayer Book of the ECUSA]. Now it seems that "Common Worship" is the favored phrase in both the Church of England and in the ECUSA Commission on Liturgy & Music for all the materials that are authorized by the respective Churches.

Now the 1979 Prayer Book does not begin like Common Worship (2000) with a List (Structure) of items for the creation of a local Liturgy but it does contain such on pages 400 to 401, under the title, "An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist." Here "the People and Priest":

Gather in the Lord's Name
Proclaim and Respond to the Word of God
Pray for the World and the Church
Exchange the Peace
Prepare the Table
Make Eucharist
Break the Bread
Share the Gifts of God

They choose from authorized material appropriate ingredients to place under these headings. This form of service created locally for local needs was not, however, in 1979 recommended for use as the principal service for Sunday. However, much has happened since 1979 and this "prophetic" inclusion in 1979 of this Structure or Shape has become the emerging norm in 2003. Lutherans who are now in "communion" with Episcopalians, and who have long had only a structure and not common texts, are delighted with this development.

Since the publication of the 1979 Prayer Book, there has been a steady stream of further optional services authorized by the General Convention for use with a bishop's permission. The latest are in the two booklets with the title of Enriching our Worship. Apart from being more obviously in expansive language, the emerging liturgies also work on the assumption that they belong to common worship (a phrase now commonly used in the Episcopal Church) and not common prayer, and that common worship includes in principle a vast assortment of services, which have in common (a) a shape and structure; (b) ingredients taken from a large amount of authorized material; (c) a grounding in a particular local situation, and (d) general authorization by the General Convention and local bishop.

So what is planned (though it is happening much more slowly than the Liturgy and Music Commission desire) as that which will hold the ECUSA together as a liturgical Church [apart from its excellent pension fund for clergy and employees] is Common Worship for a multi-racial and multi-lingual Church. This means common authorization of liturgy & music (by General Convention & bishop), common structures for basic services & common ingredients to put into the common structures according to local need and taken from a vast supply of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-generational materials.

When this is completed (or rather when it is more advanced for it is in essence a never ending task) then the days of the use of standard texts in the ECUSA will be gone (but not forever because stubborn parishes here and there will stick to favored texts from the 1928 BCP).

But what a dramatic CHANGE has occurred in the mindset and ways of Anglicans!

In the 1640s it was the Presbyterian Puritans in England who produced a Directory for Public Worship. In this were provided structures and advice on content and delivery. The Church of England responded to the Puritan ways by The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, wherein common prayer and public worship meant the use of common texts from one authorized book. But things have changed! Today, Episcopalians/Anglicans are leaving their heritage and tradition and seeking to imitate (in an appropriately modern way) the Presbyterians and Lutherans of the seventeenth century!

---

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

PAX, THE PEACE, in Common Worship

Adelphoi,



Here are some thoughts on the Pax as it is presented in the most recent C of E Directory of Public Worship, Common Worship, volume. 1.


If you ask ten different people, “What is The [passing of] The Peace” you will probably get ten different answers. It is a part of modern Anglican worship that is still in search of an explanation and a theology.

The first volume of Common Worship, which provides for Sunday services in the Church of England when The Book of Common Prayer is not used, is the authoritative source for what is called “The Peace” and for its performance in the Sunday service.

For the authoritative text of The Peace one turns to page 175 (contemporary language) or to page 215 (traditional language).

Here is what is said on page 175.

---

The Peace

The president may introduce the Peace with a suitable sentence, and then says,

The peace of the Lord be always with you.

All. And also with you.

These words may be added

Let us offer one another a sign of peace.

All may exchange a sign of peace.

---

Comment

What is clear here is that the essence of the Peace is communication through Words – those of the Priest and those of the people in response to the priest. (The latter’s reply should be “and with your spirit” for that is how a reasonable person translates the original Latin & Greek!)

Everything apart from the spoken words is governed by the iussive subjunctive, “may”, which means it is optional.

There is nothing anywhere that suggests that bodily gestures or the use of further words (e.g. “peace be with you”) are necessary for The Peace. Certainly there is no suggestion that walking about and further talking are a necessary or even an appropriate part of the offering of a sign of peace.

The kind of introductory words that the Priest may use to introduce this brief part of the service are provided on page 290, where seven options are provided. For example the first is: “Christ is our Peace…We meet in his name and share his peace.”

Concerning the position of The Peace, we are told on page 333:

“The Peace follows naturally from the Prayers of Intercession and begins the Liturgy of the Sacrament. But this section maybe transposed to be the opening greeting or maybe used later in the service, as part of either the breaking of bread or the Dismissal.”

There is further information on page 335 with reference to the traditional service.

So while it is recommended by liturgists that The Peace be placed where it is in the Service as printed in Common Worship, it is not necessary that it be there at all, but can be used at the beginning, at the ending, or at the place that it had in the BCP of 1549 and in the classic Roman Mass (after the Lord’s Prayer and before the Agnus Dei).

The fact that in this explanation on page 333 we are told that the Peace can be transposed to be the opening greeting or the final dismissal tells us much about the confusion in liturgists minds as to what precisely is The Peace and what is its purpose in the modern Eucharist.

I note that genuine liturgical scholars are NOT confused about the Holy Kiss mentioned in the New Testament (Rom.16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26 & 1 Peter 5:14.) and in the early Patristic Literature, for there are excellent academic studies thereof; but, they are confused as to how one imports the dynamic equivalent of this – a sign of peace as they say – into modern worship. Is it merely a greeting, is it the being reconciled one to another in the body of Christ before taking the sacramental Body of Christ, or is it a kind of nice to see you and goodbye till we meet again or it is all of these and more, a flexible activity? And this confusion as to what is appropriate today has been around since it was first introduced forty years ago.

It would appear that no parish can truly decide whether to have the Peace or not, where to place it in the Eucharist (or in Morning or Evening Prayer – see pages 26,27, 37, 159 of Common Worship), and what form to express it in, until it has decided what precisely the modern “The Peace” is and what it is intended to achieve. The pursuit of these questions in a parish will be fruitful for education but it will probably yield no results that are agreed upon. We must accept the fact that The Peace of modern liturgies is an innovation of modern liturgists (not necessarily liturgical scholars) and none of them has yet produced an authoritative and mutually agreed statement as to what it is!

---

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)