Mission statements have been popular for many types of organization for several decades. There is however often a big gap between that which is promised in the statement and that which is delivered on the ground!
In old-line or main-line churches and denominations there is often also a vast difference between the original statements of Faith of these churches, which are often still in place in a legal sense, and what we may call the practical theology which guides the agenda and work of the denomination at national and local levels. Take the large Lutheran Church known as the ELCA for example. While the Catechisms and Confessions of Faith from Lutheran Germany in the sixteenth century are still in place, their doctrine has little practical relevance and is little found in the life of this Church today. Instead, what tends to dominate is what may be termed a practical theology which is progressive and which embraces much of the human rights agenda of modern society. Lip service only seems to be paid to the Catechisms of Luther, the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord.
The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is in full fellowship with the ELCA. Yet, unlike the ELCA, it has not kept its original sixteenth-century statements, standards, and formularies of Faith. It set them aside and effectively abandoned them in 1979 when it adopted a new Prayer Book, wherein is a new set of services for ordination and a new Outline of Faith. (These three effectively replaced the traditional Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal & Thirty-Nine Articles.)
The new doctrine of the new standards of 1979 may be described as “vaguely liberal catholic with a strong ecumenical flavor” and it contrasts with the distinctive Reformed Catholicism of the traditional Anglican formularies. Even so, the agenda and activity of the ECUSA is guided only minimally by the new standards of the 1979 formularies; rather, like the ELCA but in much more pronounced way, the general guide is an aggressive, progressive practical theology. This rejoices to absorb much of the secular themes of rights and liberties, mental health and personal happiness, social justice and peace of western society. It sees God as revealing divine meaning and purpose in the movements of society and in human experience, and it makes biblical norms subservient to these modern insights.
Both the leadership of the ELCA and the ECUSA, but more so in the latter than the former, tend to conflate “God is Love” with “all love is of God,” which assertion and belief effectively deny the very basis of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God, at the same time as opening the door wide to modern developments and innovations in sexuality. (Of course, there are congregations in both ECUSA and ELCA -- again more in the latter than former -- which seek to preserve some of their heritage; but, in each case they represent a minority and seem to have no major voice in the councils of the denomination.)
Bearing in mind that much of the life of the ECUSA is guided by an unwritten but generally accepted, aggressive, progressive, practical theology, it is nevertheless still useful to note the differences between the Faith as officially confessed before 1979 and after 1979. In other words, it is useful in order to get perspective by contrasting the “Confession of Faith” known as “The Thirty-Nine Articles” adopted by the [P]ECUSA in 1801 and “The Outline of Faith” adopted as its replacement in 1979. It may be observed and claimed that it would have been much more difficult for the modern, aggressive, progressive, practical theology to dominate the ECUSA since the 1970s if the new Prayer Book, Ordinal and Outline of Faith had not been in place. The reason for saying this is simple. The modern practical theology is so radically different to the theology of Reformed Catholicism in the traditional Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Articles that laity would have been much more conscious of the massive changes that were occurring. In contrast, the “vague liberal catholic theology with an ecumenical flavor” of the 1979 standards presents an easier context in which to live by a new, progressive practical theology of human rights, universal peace and justice, and self-fulfillment!
What does seem as clear as the distinction between day and night is that there can be no renewal of the ECUSA in true godliness and no recovery of genuine evangelical and catholic Faith, while the 1979 standards are in place and while the progressive practical theology effectively guides the leadership at national, diocesan and parish levels. BUT who is prepared to challenge this DUO?
I intend to offer several short studies contrasting the doctrines of the pre-1979 Confession of Faith with those of the post-1979 Confession.
October 10, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
Monday, October 10, 2005
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Councils and Conventions may err and have erred.
That missing Article of Religion dropped by the PECUSA and recovered (but only as historical text) in the ECUSA
When the Protestant Episcopal Church adopted The Articles of Religion in 1801 as a Formulary (to stand alongside the American editions of The Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal of 1789 & 1792), it did not adopt them exactly as they are found in The Book of Common Prayer (1662) of the Church of England.
For example, Article XXI “Of the Authority of General Councils” of the original Articles is not printed in the American 1801 edition. But these words of explanation are provided: “The Twenty-first…is omitted because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.” Thus those who used the various printings of the 1789 edition of BCP after 1801 and then of the various printings of the 1892 & 1928 editions never really knew what was in Article XXI, as it had existed in the Church of England from 1571.
In 1979 the Episcopal Church of the USA (having dropped “Protestant” from its title) rejected The Articles as a Formulary of the Church (as it also rejected the classic BCP & Ordinal). Yet, it decided to print them as a historical document in very small print at the back of its new Formulary, the Prayer Book of 1979. And here, since it was an historical document without any authority, the text of the original Article XXI from the English BCP was printed in full:
“General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary for salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”
Why had the Convention of the PECUSA rejected this Article in 1801? Basically because it referred to Christian Princes/Kings, who in the sixteenth century were the only ones, apart from the Pope, who were seen as having authority to call together a church council. The USA was a republic and in 1801 supremely conscious of being so!
However, with hindsight we can see that the essence of this Article is truly a word of wisdom to national churches as well as to provincial churches, including both the PECUSA & ECUSA, not to mention the C of E. If General Councils may err and have erred (the Reformers were thinking primarily of the Councils called by the Pope during the period from the seventh ecumenical council held in Nicea in the eighth century through to the sixteenth century at Trent) then how much more may and have local church synods and conventions. And they have erred and may err because, like the Medieval Church they set themselves above the Word of God written, that is, above its doctrinal and moral norms and contrary to its principles of worship and prayer.
And local general conventions and synods have probably erred more in the last fifty years than at any other period since the lade middle ages! The liberated ECUSA (no longer the PECUSA with its Reformed Catholicism from the ecclesia anglicana) decided to have new formularies – new services, new doctrine, new catechism, new orders of Ministry, new morality, new language for God and man, new canons, new relations with other Anglican provinces – by the exercise of its democratic procedures. Yet in most of its innovations it has erred and it continues to err, and of this going astray from the Word of God written not a few of its leaders are very proud! Further, and most regrettably, some who do not favor its most recent errors (e.g., in homosexuality) seem to enjoy living with its older errors (e.g., in marriage norms and rules and in the doctrinal content of liturgy) and also think themselves to be worthy of the name “orthodox”.
Lord have mercy upon us.
Christ have mercy upon us.
Lord have mercy upon us.
October 9, 2005
When the Protestant Episcopal Church adopted The Articles of Religion in 1801 as a Formulary (to stand alongside the American editions of The Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal of 1789 & 1792), it did not adopt them exactly as they are found in The Book of Common Prayer (1662) of the Church of England.
For example, Article XXI “Of the Authority of General Councils” of the original Articles is not printed in the American 1801 edition. But these words of explanation are provided: “The Twenty-first…is omitted because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.” Thus those who used the various printings of the 1789 edition of BCP after 1801 and then of the various printings of the 1892 & 1928 editions never really knew what was in Article XXI, as it had existed in the Church of England from 1571.
In 1979 the Episcopal Church of the USA (having dropped “Protestant” from its title) rejected The Articles as a Formulary of the Church (as it also rejected the classic BCP & Ordinal). Yet, it decided to print them as a historical document in very small print at the back of its new Formulary, the Prayer Book of 1979. And here, since it was an historical document without any authority, the text of the original Article XXI from the English BCP was printed in full:
“General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary for salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”
Why had the Convention of the PECUSA rejected this Article in 1801? Basically because it referred to Christian Princes/Kings, who in the sixteenth century were the only ones, apart from the Pope, who were seen as having authority to call together a church council. The USA was a republic and in 1801 supremely conscious of being so!
However, with hindsight we can see that the essence of this Article is truly a word of wisdom to national churches as well as to provincial churches, including both the PECUSA & ECUSA, not to mention the C of E. If General Councils may err and have erred (the Reformers were thinking primarily of the Councils called by the Pope during the period from the seventh ecumenical council held in Nicea in the eighth century through to the sixteenth century at Trent) then how much more may and have local church synods and conventions. And they have erred and may err because, like the Medieval Church they set themselves above the Word of God written, that is, above its doctrinal and moral norms and contrary to its principles of worship and prayer.
And local general conventions and synods have probably erred more in the last fifty years than at any other period since the lade middle ages! The liberated ECUSA (no longer the PECUSA with its Reformed Catholicism from the ecclesia anglicana) decided to have new formularies – new services, new doctrine, new catechism, new orders of Ministry, new morality, new language for God and man, new canons, new relations with other Anglican provinces – by the exercise of its democratic procedures. Yet in most of its innovations it has erred and it continues to err, and of this going astray from the Word of God written not a few of its leaders are very proud! Further, and most regrettably, some who do not favor its most recent errors (e.g., in homosexuality) seem to enjoy living with its older errors (e.g., in marriage norms and rules and in the doctrinal content of liturgy) and also think themselves to be worthy of the name “orthodox”.
Lord have mercy upon us.
Christ have mercy upon us.
Lord have mercy upon us.
October 9, 2005
The Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the Roman Catholic Mass and the Anglican Eucharist & their internal variations
In the Orthodox Church there are four Eucharistic Liturgies used. The most common is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the liturgy used on all Sundays except those which fall during the Great Lent, and all holy days on which a eucharistic liturgy is served except for the eves of Pascha, Christmas and Theophany, Holy Thursday, and the feastday of St. Basil the Great (January 1). The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, used on the Sundays of Great Lent, Holy Thursday, the Eves of Pascha, Christmas, and Theophany, and the Feast of St. Basil the Great. The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts which is actually an extended Vespers service at which Holy Communion which was consecrated on the previous Sunday is distributed. The Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts is used during weekdays of Great Lent when the full celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy is prohibited. The Liturgy of St. James, is served only in certain places on the feast day of St. James the "Brother of the Lord" and first Bishop of Jerusalem.
The differences between the Liturgy of St Chrysostom and St Basil are (from the perspective of doctrine, structure and content) minimal; and the very rarely used Liturgy of St James is similar to both. Further, what the Orthodox Churches decree and permit has remained the same for centuries and there is no sign of change in 2005.
Not too long ago the Roman Catholic Church had one basic structure and content of the Mass (so-called Tridentine form) and also allowed other ancient Rites (e.g., that of Milan and those of the Orthodox tradition [see above] in the “Eastern” churches under the Roman See).
Likewise not too long ago the Anglican family of Churches had one basic structure and content of the Eucharist (from the classic BCP of 1662 ) and with this were minimal variations of style, content and ceremonial, as required by local culture or by churchmanship.
Since Vatican II in the mid-1960s, the Roman Catholic Church has multiplied its offering of Liturgies for the Mass in its own Sacramentary. Now there are four basic ones and at least another eight possibilities.
Also since the 1960s, the Anglican Churches (primarily of the West/North) have multiplied their offering of Texts for the Eucharist so that there have been hundreds authorized by Synods in the last forty years or so. Of these many have been discarded for there is a continual stream of new ones being produced.
It is said that that which binds the modern RC and Anglican varied Rites together is that they each have a common structure with common elements. In the case of Rome, there is also a reasonable claim of a minimal common doctrine as well; but, in the case of the massive Anglican variety, it is most difficult to find within the usual common structure (the sandwich of the Ministry of the Word, the Peace, and the Ministry of the Sacrament) a common doctrine of The Holy Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ & the Nature of the Sacrament. This is highly regrettable for common structure/shape cannot be a substitute for common doctrine. (Even with the Creed, Commandments and Lord’s Prayer different translations or paraphrases are used!)
Thus it is that serious-minded Christians ask:
Why is it that some modern Christians require so much variety in that which is the central Service to God and for man of the Christian Church? What did Roman Catholics and Anglicans lack in terms of sacramental worship and grace before the modern variety was thrust upon them by their liturgists, synods and hierarchy? Would it not be wise to reduce the variety dramatically in the Anglican Way [as also in the R C Church] and return to the text of the classic BCP with perhaps the use of a sound, contemporary English version of the BCP Rite as an alternative? Are not two enough and are not Two more than sufficient to be one means of uniting the Anglican Family as it tears itself apart through controversy and distrust?
October 10, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
The differences between the Liturgy of St Chrysostom and St Basil are (from the perspective of doctrine, structure and content) minimal; and the very rarely used Liturgy of St James is similar to both. Further, what the Orthodox Churches decree and permit has remained the same for centuries and there is no sign of change in 2005.
Not too long ago the Roman Catholic Church had one basic structure and content of the Mass (so-called Tridentine form) and also allowed other ancient Rites (e.g., that of Milan and those of the Orthodox tradition [see above] in the “Eastern” churches under the Roman See).
Likewise not too long ago the Anglican family of Churches had one basic structure and content of the Eucharist (from the classic BCP of 1662 ) and with this were minimal variations of style, content and ceremonial, as required by local culture or by churchmanship.
Since Vatican II in the mid-1960s, the Roman Catholic Church has multiplied its offering of Liturgies for the Mass in its own Sacramentary. Now there are four basic ones and at least another eight possibilities.
Also since the 1960s, the Anglican Churches (primarily of the West/North) have multiplied their offering of Texts for the Eucharist so that there have been hundreds authorized by Synods in the last forty years or so. Of these many have been discarded for there is a continual stream of new ones being produced.
It is said that that which binds the modern RC and Anglican varied Rites together is that they each have a common structure with common elements. In the case of Rome, there is also a reasonable claim of a minimal common doctrine as well; but, in the case of the massive Anglican variety, it is most difficult to find within the usual common structure (the sandwich of the Ministry of the Word, the Peace, and the Ministry of the Sacrament) a common doctrine of The Holy Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ & the Nature of the Sacrament. This is highly regrettable for common structure/shape cannot be a substitute for common doctrine. (Even with the Creed, Commandments and Lord’s Prayer different translations or paraphrases are used!)
Thus it is that serious-minded Christians ask:
Why is it that some modern Christians require so much variety in that which is the central Service to God and for man of the Christian Church? What did Roman Catholics and Anglicans lack in terms of sacramental worship and grace before the modern variety was thrust upon them by their liturgists, synods and hierarchy? Would it not be wise to reduce the variety dramatically in the Anglican Way [as also in the R C Church] and return to the text of the classic BCP with perhaps the use of a sound, contemporary English version of the BCP Rite as an alternative? Are not two enough and are not Two more than sufficient to be one means of uniting the Anglican Family as it tears itself apart through controversy and distrust?
October 10, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
Friday, October 07, 2005
Lift up that Base-Ball Cap from covering your eyes! THE CLOSING OF THE ANGLICAN MIND TO ALL THINGS ANGLICAN
I often wear a base-ball cap – in summer to keep the sun’s light and heat off my head (with its small bald patch) and in winter to keep my brains warm so that I can continue to engage in rational thought. It strikes me that too many Episcopalians and Anglicans from all parts of the doctrinal and ritualist spectrum in North America are like people wearing caps that are pulled down right over their eyes, for they cannot see the specific things that are Anglican in Anglicanism. They appear to be blind to that which were for centuries the basics of the Anglican Way. And the blindness is widespread, of the right as of the left, and of evangelicals as well as anglo-catholics, and of conservatives as well as liberals.
Before I say more, here is a true story as told originally by Bishop FitzSimmons Allison. In the 1970s when he was a professor at Virginia Seminary he was asked by a colleague at the University of the South to collect signatures from fellow professors in favor of printing The Thirty-Nine Articles in the new Prayer Book of the ECUSA (approved by General Convention in 1976 & 1979). He managed to collect thirteen signatures out of the twenty-three professors there, and his friend at Sewanee could only manage one signature and that was of a Lutheran member of the Faculty at Sewanee. Let it be clear – those who signed were not saying that they agreed to or liked this Formulary of the Anglican Way, but only that it be included in an appendix! Here we see in the 1970s the closing of the Anglican mind to essential Anglican things in Faculties set up to foster and propagate this mind.
The same attitude was widely present in the 1970s in the ECUSA towards the other two Formularies of the Anglican Way – the classic Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal – and both were discarded by the ECUSA in 1976/79 in favor of a novel prayer book in which are provided novel services for ordinations. Happily, the Articles did get into the new prayer book, but only as a historical document and only in a very small print size so that few can read it without a magnifying glass.
No wonder that the Articles (approved by the Church of England in 1571 and the Episcopal Church of the USA in 1801) are read and examined in 2005 by very few clergy and laity. What they contain is not known by the majority and yet various stories are passed on about their contents which are at best inadequate and at worst erroneous. Anglo-Catholics express hatred of them because of what they are supposed to say negatively about Roman doctrine and Evangelicals think that they are irrelevant because they are not primarily about mission and evangelism and because they are written in a traditional form of English.
May I suggest that especially those who claim to be the “orthodox” remnant in the ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada ought to pull up their caps from covering their eyes, so that they are able to begin to see the foundations of the Anglican Way and embrace them for what they have been and are. May I also suggest that they need to make the effort to open their minds to “things Anglican,” and to this end consider reading carefully and meditatively the Three classic Formularies of the Anglican Way, and actually using the Book of Common Prayer a little for worship!
To my fellow Evangelicals I say: There is nothing wrong and everything right to be concerned about mission and evangelism, church growth and church planting, as well as to be wholly committed to the Lordship of Jesus and the Authority of Scripture, BUT NOT AT THE COST OF closing the mind to things Anglican! For as Christians we have to belong to a given jurisdiction and to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and thus to a fullness of ecclesial life, worship, doctrine, and discipline. The Formularies point to this fullness and that is why we cannot ignore them!
Peter Toon October 7, 2005
Before I say more, here is a true story as told originally by Bishop FitzSimmons Allison. In the 1970s when he was a professor at Virginia Seminary he was asked by a colleague at the University of the South to collect signatures from fellow professors in favor of printing The Thirty-Nine Articles in the new Prayer Book of the ECUSA (approved by General Convention in 1976 & 1979). He managed to collect thirteen signatures out of the twenty-three professors there, and his friend at Sewanee could only manage one signature and that was of a Lutheran member of the Faculty at Sewanee. Let it be clear – those who signed were not saying that they agreed to or liked this Formulary of the Anglican Way, but only that it be included in an appendix! Here we see in the 1970s the closing of the Anglican mind to essential Anglican things in Faculties set up to foster and propagate this mind.
The same attitude was widely present in the 1970s in the ECUSA towards the other two Formularies of the Anglican Way – the classic Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal – and both were discarded by the ECUSA in 1976/79 in favor of a novel prayer book in which are provided novel services for ordinations. Happily, the Articles did get into the new prayer book, but only as a historical document and only in a very small print size so that few can read it without a magnifying glass.
No wonder that the Articles (approved by the Church of England in 1571 and the Episcopal Church of the USA in 1801) are read and examined in 2005 by very few clergy and laity. What they contain is not known by the majority and yet various stories are passed on about their contents which are at best inadequate and at worst erroneous. Anglo-Catholics express hatred of them because of what they are supposed to say negatively about Roman doctrine and Evangelicals think that they are irrelevant because they are not primarily about mission and evangelism and because they are written in a traditional form of English.
May I suggest that especially those who claim to be the “orthodox” remnant in the ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada ought to pull up their caps from covering their eyes, so that they are able to begin to see the foundations of the Anglican Way and embrace them for what they have been and are. May I also suggest that they need to make the effort to open their minds to “things Anglican,” and to this end consider reading carefully and meditatively the Three classic Formularies of the Anglican Way, and actually using the Book of Common Prayer a little for worship!
To my fellow Evangelicals I say: There is nothing wrong and everything right to be concerned about mission and evangelism, church growth and church planting, as well as to be wholly committed to the Lordship of Jesus and the Authority of Scripture, BUT NOT AT THE COST OF closing the mind to things Anglican! For as Christians we have to belong to a given jurisdiction and to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and thus to a fullness of ecclesial life, worship, doctrine, and discipline. The Formularies point to this fullness and that is why we cannot ignore them!
Peter Toon October 7, 2005
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Recognizing the disease and looking for the cure
A call to self-examination by all Episcopalians
It is generally agreed that of all Anglican Provinces the Episcopal Church USA has advanced the most in the incorporation of innovations into its constitution, canons, formularies, worship, doctrine, discipline, practice and common life. And it is generally agreed that many of these innovations represent a major change of what was the case and situation previously.
From the perspective of the historic, classical and biblical Anglican Way, the ECUSA as an institution, along with many of its dioceses and parishes, is apostate, in that it has knowingly and deliberately departed from the Faith and Morality, the Worship and Order, that it was committed to, previous to the late 1960s. Within its membership are those, regrettably but a minority, who protest at this apostasy and who desire this Church to engage in a spiritual and moral U-turn.
When a whole Church is in apostasy, it is infected with a particular contagious disease that has moral and spiritual dimensions. And all the members, clergy and laity, have this disease whether they approve or disapprove of the latest innovations in apostasy. Now the signs of the disease may be prominent or hidden but the disease is there affecting all, for all belong to the One Body and have much in common (not least being the health schemes and the pension plans). And like the diseases of original and actual sin, all those who have this disease of apostasy are guilty before God. In fact no member of the ECUSA is without this disease and so all partake of the guilt it brings.
There is much about apostasy in the Old Testament, especially in the prophetic descriptions and denunciations, as the covenant people are called to forsake their evil ways and to engage in repentance and faith. And there is not a little in the New Testament in the teaching of Jesus and his apostles about apostasy (which was relatively common even in the apostolic age!), calling the people of the new covenant to return to their first love and then mature in this pure faith.
Apostasy includes such terrible sins as rebellion against God, his revelation and his laws, pride instead of humility, untruths instead of truth, immorality instead of morality, affirmation of sinful man instead of the magnifying of the Lord our God, the love of this world and its ways instead of the love of Christ and his kingdom of glory, and so on.
The ECUSA has systematically, democratically and knowingly set aside much of its holy inheritance in terms of dogma, doctrine, teaching, worship, pastoral care, and godly discipline, as it has sought to be relevant to the modern world and to reflect the concerns, priorities and values of the secularized society in which it exists. It has attempted to be in this world and for this world by being of this world, looking for peace and justice, understood in modern terms.
Every time people in the pew or the priest in the chancel pick up the primary prayer book of this church they set forth and share in this apostasy. As a starter, they participate in the act of piracy of the General Convention in stealing a title for this book, and they participate in its adoption of a lie in calling the prayer book they use, “The Book of Common Prayer,” for it is not truly such at all. It is in the style and form of “A Book of Alternative Services” and is not a genuine continuation of the American editions of the authentic Book of Common Prayer. Further, and alarmingly, they participate in the rejection of the receive doctrinal and worship standards of the Anglican Way (the Articles, the classic BCP and Ordinal) as they adopt the innovatory doctrine of the 1979 formulary.
Then, within the pages of the 1979 book, and more so in its companion, Enriching our Worship (1991) they use forms of words that are deliberate changes in the way in which God is known and addressed, and all in order to make radical feminists happy with the type of language used of and for Deity. In using the Psalter they effectively remove Jesus from their prayers for he is “the Man” of Psalm 1 who has been made into the androgynous “they” for Episcopalians. In using Acclamations to begin the Eucharist, they dumb down the proclamation of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity, and in using virtually any of the options for the Eucharistic Prayer, they negate the doctrine of justification by faith through grace as well as other prominent doctrines of the Work of Christ set forth in The Articles of Religion (1801) of the ECUSA. And when they use the Outline of Faith in the Prayer Book with its “liberal catholic theology” they proclaim a rejection of the doctrine set forth in the historic, classical and received Formularies of the Anglican Way.
Then, almost each time there is a wedding in the parish and where one or both of the parties is a divorcee they accept that there has been a major departure from the rules for marriage of both the Scriptures and the Anglican Way. Each time they call a Minister who is divorced and remarried or married to a divorcee they share in the apostasy. Further, each time they attend an ordination or sit under the ministry of a female bishop, or even female presbyter, they accept that the Episcopal Church has created a new Ordinal and new Ministry which is a major departure from the norm of the Anglican Way as set forth in The Ordinal of 1792.
Thus it is not only the rejection of the received holy tradition of worship, doctrine and discipline, it is also the adoption of new doctrine, forms of worship and morality. Further, there is a pernicious but seemingly attractive ethos and a style that marks the apostasy. This is exhibited, for example, in the often-heard remark to those with problems of conscience: “Concentrate only on the sexual aberrations of 2004 and do not raise other matters going back to the 1960s. They can be dealt with later. One thing at a time” Here a supposedly political strategy for success is being offered as a way of not facing the depth and length of the apostasy, which is being effectively reduced to the adoption of homosexual innovations! So those who oppose the sexual innovations continue to live within the very apostasy of which the sexual innovations are but the latest manifestation and fruit. And they justify themselves in the same way that secular politicians do so!
Another strategy to avoid dealing with the depth of the apostasy is to reduce the Anglican Way to a kind of generic, basic Christian profession – e.g., to the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Holy Scriptures (and avoid reference to the larger compass of the Formularies). This generalized kind of statement, which has no specific reference to worship, Ministry or dogma, allows people in practice to avoid facing the question as to whether the Prayer Book they use and the ceremonial, ritual practices they allow and follow do actually stand up to the test of the Lordship of Christ In fact they tend to assume that everything is really OK with the ECUSA apart from its sexual innovations and a few other odd things here and there. Further, a version of the Bible is often used by them (based on the theory of dynamic equivalency) which actually serves the purpose of dulling and minimizing the actual authority of the sacred Text!
And, regrettably, we need to be clear that leaving the ECUSA and setting up a new congregation is not in itself a cure of the disease. The disease has to be diagnosed and treated until it is under control and finally healed. Perhaps too many who are only partly healed on exiting the ECUSA are setting up churches and unconsciously building into their new life aspects of the apostasy of the ECUSA! So this disease is not cured and will grow again.
Whether we are inside or outside of the ECUSA we need HEALING of our diseases, both individually and corporate, by the God of our Salvation and the Healer of our souls and bodies. This is a most painful and demanding task and experience.
LORD, have mercy upon us all.
Peter Toon October 6, 2005
It is generally agreed that of all Anglican Provinces the Episcopal Church USA has advanced the most in the incorporation of innovations into its constitution, canons, formularies, worship, doctrine, discipline, practice and common life. And it is generally agreed that many of these innovations represent a major change of what was the case and situation previously.
From the perspective of the historic, classical and biblical Anglican Way, the ECUSA as an institution, along with many of its dioceses and parishes, is apostate, in that it has knowingly and deliberately departed from the Faith and Morality, the Worship and Order, that it was committed to, previous to the late 1960s. Within its membership are those, regrettably but a minority, who protest at this apostasy and who desire this Church to engage in a spiritual and moral U-turn.
When a whole Church is in apostasy, it is infected with a particular contagious disease that has moral and spiritual dimensions. And all the members, clergy and laity, have this disease whether they approve or disapprove of the latest innovations in apostasy. Now the signs of the disease may be prominent or hidden but the disease is there affecting all, for all belong to the One Body and have much in common (not least being the health schemes and the pension plans). And like the diseases of original and actual sin, all those who have this disease of apostasy are guilty before God. In fact no member of the ECUSA is without this disease and so all partake of the guilt it brings.
There is much about apostasy in the Old Testament, especially in the prophetic descriptions and denunciations, as the covenant people are called to forsake their evil ways and to engage in repentance and faith. And there is not a little in the New Testament in the teaching of Jesus and his apostles about apostasy (which was relatively common even in the apostolic age!), calling the people of the new covenant to return to their first love and then mature in this pure faith.
Apostasy includes such terrible sins as rebellion against God, his revelation and his laws, pride instead of humility, untruths instead of truth, immorality instead of morality, affirmation of sinful man instead of the magnifying of the Lord our God, the love of this world and its ways instead of the love of Christ and his kingdom of glory, and so on.
The ECUSA has systematically, democratically and knowingly set aside much of its holy inheritance in terms of dogma, doctrine, teaching, worship, pastoral care, and godly discipline, as it has sought to be relevant to the modern world and to reflect the concerns, priorities and values of the secularized society in which it exists. It has attempted to be in this world and for this world by being of this world, looking for peace and justice, understood in modern terms.
Every time people in the pew or the priest in the chancel pick up the primary prayer book of this church they set forth and share in this apostasy. As a starter, they participate in the act of piracy of the General Convention in stealing a title for this book, and they participate in its adoption of a lie in calling the prayer book they use, “The Book of Common Prayer,” for it is not truly such at all. It is in the style and form of “A Book of Alternative Services” and is not a genuine continuation of the American editions of the authentic Book of Common Prayer. Further, and alarmingly, they participate in the rejection of the receive doctrinal and worship standards of the Anglican Way (the Articles, the classic BCP and Ordinal) as they adopt the innovatory doctrine of the 1979 formulary.
Then, within the pages of the 1979 book, and more so in its companion, Enriching our Worship (1991) they use forms of words that are deliberate changes in the way in which God is known and addressed, and all in order to make radical feminists happy with the type of language used of and for Deity. In using the Psalter they effectively remove Jesus from their prayers for he is “the Man” of Psalm 1 who has been made into the androgynous “they” for Episcopalians. In using Acclamations to begin the Eucharist, they dumb down the proclamation of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity, and in using virtually any of the options for the Eucharistic Prayer, they negate the doctrine of justification by faith through grace as well as other prominent doctrines of the Work of Christ set forth in The Articles of Religion (1801) of the ECUSA. And when they use the Outline of Faith in the Prayer Book with its “liberal catholic theology” they proclaim a rejection of the doctrine set forth in the historic, classical and received Formularies of the Anglican Way.
Then, almost each time there is a wedding in the parish and where one or both of the parties is a divorcee they accept that there has been a major departure from the rules for marriage of both the Scriptures and the Anglican Way. Each time they call a Minister who is divorced and remarried or married to a divorcee they share in the apostasy. Further, each time they attend an ordination or sit under the ministry of a female bishop, or even female presbyter, they accept that the Episcopal Church has created a new Ordinal and new Ministry which is a major departure from the norm of the Anglican Way as set forth in The Ordinal of 1792.
Thus it is not only the rejection of the received holy tradition of worship, doctrine and discipline, it is also the adoption of new doctrine, forms of worship and morality. Further, there is a pernicious but seemingly attractive ethos and a style that marks the apostasy. This is exhibited, for example, in the often-heard remark to those with problems of conscience: “Concentrate only on the sexual aberrations of 2004 and do not raise other matters going back to the 1960s. They can be dealt with later. One thing at a time” Here a supposedly political strategy for success is being offered as a way of not facing the depth and length of the apostasy, which is being effectively reduced to the adoption of homosexual innovations! So those who oppose the sexual innovations continue to live within the very apostasy of which the sexual innovations are but the latest manifestation and fruit. And they justify themselves in the same way that secular politicians do so!
Another strategy to avoid dealing with the depth of the apostasy is to reduce the Anglican Way to a kind of generic, basic Christian profession – e.g., to the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Holy Scriptures (and avoid reference to the larger compass of the Formularies). This generalized kind of statement, which has no specific reference to worship, Ministry or dogma, allows people in practice to avoid facing the question as to whether the Prayer Book they use and the ceremonial, ritual practices they allow and follow do actually stand up to the test of the Lordship of Christ In fact they tend to assume that everything is really OK with the ECUSA apart from its sexual innovations and a few other odd things here and there. Further, a version of the Bible is often used by them (based on the theory of dynamic equivalency) which actually serves the purpose of dulling and minimizing the actual authority of the sacred Text!
And, regrettably, we need to be clear that leaving the ECUSA and setting up a new congregation is not in itself a cure of the disease. The disease has to be diagnosed and treated until it is under control and finally healed. Perhaps too many who are only partly healed on exiting the ECUSA are setting up churches and unconsciously building into their new life aspects of the apostasy of the ECUSA! So this disease is not cured and will grow again.
Whether we are inside or outside of the ECUSA we need HEALING of our diseases, both individually and corporate, by the God of our Salvation and the Healer of our souls and bodies. This is a most painful and demanding task and experience.
LORD, have mercy upon us all.
Peter Toon October 6, 2005
Why is the historic Ordinal bound into the classical Prayer Book as a Formulary?
A discussion starter
Few Anglicans ever read the services used for the ordaining of deacons and priests and the consecrating of bishops. Apparently, they do not see any direct relevance of these services to their attempts to live as Christians in the modern world. Maybe they do not even know where to find these services!
Well, inside the covers of the pew editions of The Book of Common Prayer (1662/1928/1962) there is the Psalter and also three basic texts – 1. that which is really and truly the Prayer Book, containing many services; 2. that which is the Book of Ordination Services or Ordinal, and 3. that which is the Confession of Faith, known as The Articles of Religion. The three together constitute the Formularies of the Anglican Way and are listed as such in the Constitution and Canons of Anglican Churches around the world. They provide form and shape, content and meaning, to the Churches known as Anglican, which profess the Christian Faith as Reformed Catholicism.
But why should the Ordinal, “The Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priest and Deacons,” be printed inside the covers of “The Book of Common Prayer” and why be a Formulary of the Church? The answer in simple terms is this: because the ordained Ministry is by Christ’s will and appointment an indispensable part of the shape and content of the Church of God, and thus this Ministry has to be defined, set apart and put in place within the [province of the Anglican] Church in an orderly and decent manner.
In the USA edition of The Thirty-Nine Articles, included within the 1928 edition of The Book of Common Prayer the following is found:
The wording here of course is similar to, but not identical with, that in the English version of The Articles of Religion. The English version refers to the setting forth by the Crown and Parliament not by a General Convention or Synod of the Church in a newly independent nation.
The Preface to the Ordinal makes the claim that the Threefold Ministry may be traced back to the apostolic age and has been in place in the Church over the centuries. It insists that all ordinations are to be performed in a reverent and godly manner and that each candidate for holy orders is to be known to be “a person who is a man of virtuous conversation [= daily living] and without crime.” Then the content of each of the three services requires that candidates be properly called, examined and ordained. The charges to the deacon, priest and bishop give a most important picture of the vocation and work of the Threefold Ministry in the Church.
Most regrettably and foolishly, the Episcopal Church in 1976/79 set aside The Articles and the Ordinal, as well as The Book of Common Prayer (1928), as Formularies and put in their place one Formulary, the innovatory Prayer Book of 1979, in which are(a) an “Outline of the Faith” to replace the Articles, and (b) “Episcopal Services” for ordinations to replace the Ordinal [together with a Psalter in inclusive language to make traditional use of the Psalter as the prayer of Christ in his Body impossible].
What are some of the innovations in the present Ordinal of the ECUSA?
Few Anglicans ever read the services used for the ordaining of deacons and priests and the consecrating of bishops. Apparently, they do not see any direct relevance of these services to their attempts to live as Christians in the modern world. Maybe they do not even know where to find these services!
Well, inside the covers of the pew editions of The Book of Common Prayer (1662/1928/1962) there is the Psalter and also three basic texts – 1. that which is really and truly the Prayer Book, containing many services; 2. that which is the Book of Ordination Services or Ordinal, and 3. that which is the Confession of Faith, known as The Articles of Religion. The three together constitute the Formularies of the Anglican Way and are listed as such in the Constitution and Canons of Anglican Churches around the world. They provide form and shape, content and meaning, to the Churches known as Anglican, which profess the Christian Faith as Reformed Catholicism.
But why should the Ordinal, “The Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priest and Deacons,” be printed inside the covers of “The Book of Common Prayer” and why be a Formulary of the Church? The answer in simple terms is this: because the ordained Ministry is by Christ’s will and appointment an indispensable part of the shape and content of the Church of God, and thus this Ministry has to be defined, set apart and put in place within the [province of the Anglican] Church in an orderly and decent manner.
In the USA edition of The Thirty-Nine Articles, included within the 1928 edition of The Book of Common Prayer the following is found:
XXXVI Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it anything that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.
The wording here of course is similar to, but not identical with, that in the English version of The Articles of Religion. The English version refers to the setting forth by the Crown and Parliament not by a General Convention or Synod of the Church in a newly independent nation.
The Preface to the Ordinal makes the claim that the Threefold Ministry may be traced back to the apostolic age and has been in place in the Church over the centuries. It insists that all ordinations are to be performed in a reverent and godly manner and that each candidate for holy orders is to be known to be “a person who is a man of virtuous conversation [= daily living] and without crime.” Then the content of each of the three services requires that candidates be properly called, examined and ordained. The charges to the deacon, priest and bishop give a most important picture of the vocation and work of the Threefold Ministry in the Church.
Most regrettably and foolishly, the Episcopal Church in 1976/79 set aside The Articles and the Ordinal, as well as The Book of Common Prayer (1928), as Formularies and put in their place one Formulary, the innovatory Prayer Book of 1979, in which are(a) an “Outline of the Faith” to replace the Articles, and (b) “Episcopal Services” for ordinations to replace the Ordinal [together with a Psalter in inclusive language to make traditional use of the Psalter as the prayer of Christ in his Body impossible].
What are some of the innovations in the present Ordinal of the ECUSA?
The Christian Faith which is presupposed as that which the clergy are to teach and defend is the doctrine [= a type of 1960s liberal Catholicism] summarized in the Outline of Faith in the same Prayer Book wherein are the ordination services. Thus there is a question as to whether those ordained by this Ordinal are ordained into the historic Catholic Faith or whether they are ordained to teach and defend a revised form of Anglican Faith.- The Threefold Ministry that is presupposed by the Ordinal of 1979 is a Ministry which is composed of both sexes, female and male. And thus there is a question as to whether a new kind of Ministry began in 1979 which cannot be traced back further than the 1970s and is a Ministry which is different in character and nature to that presupposed and described in the Preface to the classic Anglican Ordinal. Certainly those ordained are legally ministers of the ECUSA, but are they more than this, ministers of the Catholic Church, in the historical succession of both Faith and Order?
- The shape or structure of the services is based not upon Reformed Catholicism (as is the classic Ordinal) but on a reconstruction of what some scholars believe were the services of ordination before the reign of Constantine the Great and before the supposed “hellenization” of the teaching of the Church. Does this search for novelty suggest the desire to begin in the 1970s a new form of Ministry that sets aside the crucial developments of dogma and order in the major part of the patristic age and of the reforming movement of the sixteenth century?
It would seem that for doctrinal and pastoral reasons, and in order to deal with cases of conscience amongst clergy and laity, there are very good reasons to recover the classic Ordinal for immediate use (and if those to use it are unhappy with addressing God and ministers as “Thou” then the whole thing can be rendered into a decent contemporary English for the relief of their concerns and they can address God as “You”!). I guess that the American Anglican Council, the Network, the AMiA, Anglicans United and the FinFNA are all thinking seriously about these matters for they want surely to know that the Ministry they support is truly a Catholic and Apostolic one.
October 6, 2005 Peter Toon
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Do the Articles of Religion & The Book of Common Prayer belong to the same Religion? Can the Articles be effectively ignored?
THINKING ALOUD, not speaking the last word! And expecting some tough responses!
In terms of historical sequence, The Book of Common Prayer with The Ordinal existed and were fully approved and in use before The Articles of Religion were officially accepted by Queen Elizabeth I until 1571. So one could say that Reformed Catholicism as the Religion of the Church of England and the Anglican Way did exist and can exist without the Articles as its Confession of Faith. And anglo-catholic missionary societies took this position when they established churches abroad in the late 19th century and early 20th, for they listed in the constitutions only two Formularies, the BCP and the Ordinal, and did not mention the Articles.
However, if one does a careful study of the explicit and implicit doctrine of the BCP of 1662 and then of the official national editions of the same BCP in Canada (1962) and the USA (1789 & 1928) one will certainly find exactly the same positive doctrine as is found in the Articles concerning the identity of God as the Holy Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ, human sin and salvation, justification by faith, the two dominical Sacraments and so on. What is obviously not so explicit in the BCP as in the Articles is the rejection of medieval Roman doctrine and practice. However, in the BCP there is no trace of the medieval Roman or the Tridentine dogma/doctrine concerning the Eucharist or salvation in Christ that is rejected by the Articles. And did not Gregory Dix (of The Shape of the Liturgy fame) claim that the BCP Order for Holy Communion was a near perfect embodiment of the doctrine of justification by faith in a Service?
The ways in which those who have been called anglo-catholics and who reject the Articles as a Formulary (and confine them to the status of a historical document from the 16th century) have been able to remain in the Anglican Way are several – e.g., by omitting the Articles from the Constitution and local editions of the BCP; by using the modern R C Missal (as many in FinF of England do) and justifying their rejection of the Articles and use of the Missal on the basis of a future union with the Roman See [what shall be, they say, justifies what is]; by adding to the BCP from the Tridentine Missal those sections which contain the doctrine specifically rejected by the Articles, and producing the Anglican Missal[s] as the Altar Book (as anglo-catholics in the Continuing Churches of the USA and in a few parishes of the ECUSA do); and by expounding the Articles in such a way as to permit Catholic practice today when the plain sense appears to ordinary folks to forbid it (we recall that Newman tried to do this and realized it was really an impossible task!).
It may be recalled that one of the reasons why anglo-catholics in the ECUSA were excited about the 1979 Prayer Book was that it seemed to give them what they had been asking for in terms of “catholic services” (howbeit, as they later came to realize, injected with a liberal theology and allowing female ordination!) and that it relegated the Articles to an appendix printed in small type and called a historical document.
The Formulary of the ECUSA is right now the 1979 prayer book, with its Catechism and its Ordination services. This is indeed a “liberal Catholic” Formulary in terms of its theology and as such it is neither in conformity to the Reformed Catholic doctrine of the Articles nor the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Anglican/American Missal used by anglo-catholics in the ECUSA before and after 1979 and in the Continuing Churches from 1977. This “liberal theology” has progressed rapidly (see, e.g., the official Enriching our Worship and will be even more advanced in the next “Prayer Book” of the ECUSA due this decade).
But back to the Articles and the classic BCP.
The Church of Nigeria, the largest Church in the Anglican Family, has recently nailed its flag to the mast in terms of commitment to both the BCP & Articles. Other African provinces are in agreement. On the other side of things, the FinF in the UK seems to be clearly resolved to come under the pastoral care of the Bishop of Rome, as also does the Traditional Anglican Communion and various Continuing jurisdictions.
This leaves the possibility of a reduced Anglican Family, which if (and it is a big if) it can shed its extreme liberal wings in the West/North is all set to be able to unite on the basis of the Formularies once again, a doctrinal unity with comprehensiveness of ritual, music and local expressions.
However, uniting on the basis of the Formularies means uniting on a minimum of Two and a maximum of THREE, if the few provinces that have not the Articles in their Constitutions are to have a true place. Not to have the Articles may be taken to mean that they are high-church or mildly anglo-catholic in doctrine and practice and do not want in any way to state they are opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, especially in its post Vatican II form.
There seems to be a space and opportunity in the world today for the kind of dynamic, biblically-based Reformed Catholicism that is the Anglican Way – with its Two or Three Formularies! There is also a larger place for a renewed Roman Catholicism in the world, especially where it holds Bible and Missal with Breviary together (and which anglo-catholics of the Anglican Way have joined)! But there seems to be little or no future for the progressive liberalism of the ECUSA General Convention and leadership!
(For 12 major expositions of the Articles on one CD in Adobe for $20.00 please visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1 800 727 1928. These include both high church and low church books by well-known leaders in the Anglican Way.)
Peter Toon, October 5, 2005 thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
In terms of historical sequence, The Book of Common Prayer with The Ordinal existed and were fully approved and in use before The Articles of Religion were officially accepted by Queen Elizabeth I until 1571. So one could say that Reformed Catholicism as the Religion of the Church of England and the Anglican Way did exist and can exist without the Articles as its Confession of Faith. And anglo-catholic missionary societies took this position when they established churches abroad in the late 19th century and early 20th, for they listed in the constitutions only two Formularies, the BCP and the Ordinal, and did not mention the Articles.
However, if one does a careful study of the explicit and implicit doctrine of the BCP of 1662 and then of the official national editions of the same BCP in Canada (1962) and the USA (1789 & 1928) one will certainly find exactly the same positive doctrine as is found in the Articles concerning the identity of God as the Holy Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ, human sin and salvation, justification by faith, the two dominical Sacraments and so on. What is obviously not so explicit in the BCP as in the Articles is the rejection of medieval Roman doctrine and practice. However, in the BCP there is no trace of the medieval Roman or the Tridentine dogma/doctrine concerning the Eucharist or salvation in Christ that is rejected by the Articles. And did not Gregory Dix (of The Shape of the Liturgy fame) claim that the BCP Order for Holy Communion was a near perfect embodiment of the doctrine of justification by faith in a Service?
The ways in which those who have been called anglo-catholics and who reject the Articles as a Formulary (and confine them to the status of a historical document from the 16th century) have been able to remain in the Anglican Way are several – e.g., by omitting the Articles from the Constitution and local editions of the BCP; by using the modern R C Missal (as many in FinF of England do) and justifying their rejection of the Articles and use of the Missal on the basis of a future union with the Roman See [what shall be, they say, justifies what is]; by adding to the BCP from the Tridentine Missal those sections which contain the doctrine specifically rejected by the Articles, and producing the Anglican Missal[s] as the Altar Book (as anglo-catholics in the Continuing Churches of the USA and in a few parishes of the ECUSA do); and by expounding the Articles in such a way as to permit Catholic practice today when the plain sense appears to ordinary folks to forbid it (we recall that Newman tried to do this and realized it was really an impossible task!).
It may be recalled that one of the reasons why anglo-catholics in the ECUSA were excited about the 1979 Prayer Book was that it seemed to give them what they had been asking for in terms of “catholic services” (howbeit, as they later came to realize, injected with a liberal theology and allowing female ordination!) and that it relegated the Articles to an appendix printed in small type and called a historical document.
The Formulary of the ECUSA is right now the 1979 prayer book, with its Catechism and its Ordination services. This is indeed a “liberal Catholic” Formulary in terms of its theology and as such it is neither in conformity to the Reformed Catholic doctrine of the Articles nor the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Anglican/American Missal used by anglo-catholics in the ECUSA before and after 1979 and in the Continuing Churches from 1977. This “liberal theology” has progressed rapidly (see, e.g., the official Enriching our Worship and will be even more advanced in the next “Prayer Book” of the ECUSA due this decade).
But back to the Articles and the classic BCP.
The Church of Nigeria, the largest Church in the Anglican Family, has recently nailed its flag to the mast in terms of commitment to both the BCP & Articles. Other African provinces are in agreement. On the other side of things, the FinF in the UK seems to be clearly resolved to come under the pastoral care of the Bishop of Rome, as also does the Traditional Anglican Communion and various Continuing jurisdictions.
This leaves the possibility of a reduced Anglican Family, which if (and it is a big if) it can shed its extreme liberal wings in the West/North is all set to be able to unite on the basis of the Formularies once again, a doctrinal unity with comprehensiveness of ritual, music and local expressions.
However, uniting on the basis of the Formularies means uniting on a minimum of Two and a maximum of THREE, if the few provinces that have not the Articles in their Constitutions are to have a true place. Not to have the Articles may be taken to mean that they are high-church or mildly anglo-catholic in doctrine and practice and do not want in any way to state they are opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, especially in its post Vatican II form.
There seems to be a space and opportunity in the world today for the kind of dynamic, biblically-based Reformed Catholicism that is the Anglican Way – with its Two or Three Formularies! There is also a larger place for a renewed Roman Catholicism in the world, especially where it holds Bible and Missal with Breviary together (and which anglo-catholics of the Anglican Way have joined)! But there seems to be little or no future for the progressive liberalism of the ECUSA General Convention and leadership!
(For 12 major expositions of the Articles on one CD in Adobe for $20.00 please visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1 800 727 1928. These include both high church and low church books by well-known leaders in the Anglican Way.)
Peter Toon, October 5, 2005 thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571) – how boring!
Very few Anglicans/Episcopalians today actually look at, and even fewer actually read and study, the Confession of Faith of the Anglican Way! This means that few clergy and laity know what it is for the Church of England and the provinces of the Anglican Communion to be known as Reformed Catholic in their Christian religion. Together with the classic Book of Common Prayer and the Ordination Services (Ordinal), the Articles constitute the Formularies of the Anglican Way. (All three Formularies are bound together in the English BCP of 1662, the American BCP of 1928 and the Canadian BCP of 1962. In English Canon Law the Articles are always listed first of the three.)
The Articles of Religion were adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in 1801 and then were bound together with The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal (editions of 1789, 1892 and 1928). So the American Church had the same Formularies as the Church of England from its origins in the 1780s to the late 1970s.
The Church of England has retained these Formularies to this day (2005) but the Episcopal Church rejected them as worship and doctrine standards by majority votes in General Convention in 1976 and then again in 1979. Since then the Articles have been treated as a museum piece without any authority in America. They have been effectively replaced by the radically liberal “Outline of the Faith” printed inside the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church. In contrast, in 2005 the large Anglican Church of Nigeria reaffirmed its commitment to the BCP, Ordinal and Articles and stated that it would only be in fellowship with Churches of the same doctrine (and thus not in communion with the Episcopal Church of the USA).
Let me begin my reflections on the Articles by referring to a famous 19th century bishop, John Charles Ryle. Years ago I made a study of his life and writings as the first Bishop of Liverpool (the diocese where I was ordained in 1973) and then I published several books and articles about him.
Ryle was very much an English Churchman, a committed and loyal member of the Church of England, and he defined his churchmanship, as did all Evangelicals in his day, in terms of his commitment to the doctrine of the Articles of Religion (which are printed at the back of every official copy of the BCP). For him, as for others, The Book of Common Prayer was a most excellent Liturgy, but it was not seen as the confession of faith of the Church. The Confession of Faith was the Articles of Religion and the Prayer Book was the Liturgy wherein the doctrines of the Faith were to be found in the form of prayer and collect, canticle and versicle, rubric and exhortation, preface and addresses, and the shape and structure of the services. And the doctrine of the Ministry, stated in the Articles, was set out in large format in the three services for the making of deacons, ordering of priests and consecrating of bishops (the Ordinal).
Certainly the Articles are a sixteenth century statement of Faith but they may be seen as providing a major signpost and guide through the controversies, debates and divisions of the period of the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation. They may also be seen as pointing the way into a Reformed Catholic expression of Christianity that is based on the Scriptures and learns from history and tradition. Further, they may be seen as setting boundaries for this Reformed Catholic Faith, making clear when and where stepping over the line leads into error and heresy, immorality and wickedness.
The Articles are boring to those who are not enthusiastic to know what is the basis and content of Reformed Catholic Faith. Yet this is not surprising for we all know that many important documents are boring, unless one has an interest in their contents – for example, wills and testaments, marriage settlements, constitutions and canons, are boring for most people but extremely important to others who have a personal interest in knowing what is written therein!
A quick survey of the Articles reveals that they contain what may be called the patristic and catholic dogma of God the Holy Trinity, a Trinity of Persons in the One Godhead, and of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, the One Person with Two Natures, Divine and Human. Also they contain what may be called the distinctive doctrines of the Reformation – e.g., the authority of Scripture, the saving and redeeming work of Christ Jesus, the nature of sin, justification by faith issuing in works of love, and the dominical Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Without the Articles of Religion, the Anglican Way is a Way that is not clearly defined and thus a Way in which it is possible to get lost! However, with the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer functioning, as it were, hand in hand, together with the reading and meditating upon the Bible, there is in existence the authentic Anglican Way of Reformed Catholicism.
What these two Formularies joined to the Ordinal present to us – as summarized for ordinary folks in the late 16th century – is a simple 1,2,3,4 & 5, which “scheme” was used as the basis for the reforms of the 16th century. The Anglican Way is based upon ONE Canon of Scripture with TWO Testaments, whose doctrinal message is summarized in THREE Creeds (Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian); and is found in more detail in the decrees and canons of FOUR ecumenical councils [Nicea (325), Constantinople (381) , Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451)] and by the general developments (e.g., Liturgy, threefold Ministry, Church Year, Canon Law and so on) of the first FIVE centuries.
The 1,2,3,4 & 5 are a basis not the whole structure, but without a foundation there is no structure.
So to return to where we began.
The Articles may be boring to many but to those who are committed to the Anglican Way they are exciting and necessary.
Read them!
If the Liturgical Commission of the ECUSA had taken them seriously, they would have produced a much more biblically based and reformed catholic Liturgy for the new Prayer Book of 1979. Why, for example, did not this Commission produce a dynamic equivalent to the services of the classic Prayer Book in contemporary language instead of creating something very different in style, content and doctrine in the Rite II material?
So read the Articles and read the classic BCP and Ordinal along with them! And be pleasantly surprised – even by delight and joy.
October 4, 2005.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
The Articles of Religion were adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in 1801 and then were bound together with The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal (editions of 1789, 1892 and 1928). So the American Church had the same Formularies as the Church of England from its origins in the 1780s to the late 1970s.
The Church of England has retained these Formularies to this day (2005) but the Episcopal Church rejected them as worship and doctrine standards by majority votes in General Convention in 1976 and then again in 1979. Since then the Articles have been treated as a museum piece without any authority in America. They have been effectively replaced by the radically liberal “Outline of the Faith” printed inside the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church. In contrast, in 2005 the large Anglican Church of Nigeria reaffirmed its commitment to the BCP, Ordinal and Articles and stated that it would only be in fellowship with Churches of the same doctrine (and thus not in communion with the Episcopal Church of the USA).
Let me begin my reflections on the Articles by referring to a famous 19th century bishop, John Charles Ryle. Years ago I made a study of his life and writings as the first Bishop of Liverpool (the diocese where I was ordained in 1973) and then I published several books and articles about him.
Ryle was very much an English Churchman, a committed and loyal member of the Church of England, and he defined his churchmanship, as did all Evangelicals in his day, in terms of his commitment to the doctrine of the Articles of Religion (which are printed at the back of every official copy of the BCP). For him, as for others, The Book of Common Prayer was a most excellent Liturgy, but it was not seen as the confession of faith of the Church. The Confession of Faith was the Articles of Religion and the Prayer Book was the Liturgy wherein the doctrines of the Faith were to be found in the form of prayer and collect, canticle and versicle, rubric and exhortation, preface and addresses, and the shape and structure of the services. And the doctrine of the Ministry, stated in the Articles, was set out in large format in the three services for the making of deacons, ordering of priests and consecrating of bishops (the Ordinal).
Certainly the Articles are a sixteenth century statement of Faith but they may be seen as providing a major signpost and guide through the controversies, debates and divisions of the period of the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation. They may also be seen as pointing the way into a Reformed Catholic expression of Christianity that is based on the Scriptures and learns from history and tradition. Further, they may be seen as setting boundaries for this Reformed Catholic Faith, making clear when and where stepping over the line leads into error and heresy, immorality and wickedness.
The Articles are boring to those who are not enthusiastic to know what is the basis and content of Reformed Catholic Faith. Yet this is not surprising for we all know that many important documents are boring, unless one has an interest in their contents – for example, wills and testaments, marriage settlements, constitutions and canons, are boring for most people but extremely important to others who have a personal interest in knowing what is written therein!
A quick survey of the Articles reveals that they contain what may be called the patristic and catholic dogma of God the Holy Trinity, a Trinity of Persons in the One Godhead, and of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, the One Person with Two Natures, Divine and Human. Also they contain what may be called the distinctive doctrines of the Reformation – e.g., the authority of Scripture, the saving and redeeming work of Christ Jesus, the nature of sin, justification by faith issuing in works of love, and the dominical Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Without the Articles of Religion, the Anglican Way is a Way that is not clearly defined and thus a Way in which it is possible to get lost! However, with the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer functioning, as it were, hand in hand, together with the reading and meditating upon the Bible, there is in existence the authentic Anglican Way of Reformed Catholicism.
What these two Formularies joined to the Ordinal present to us – as summarized for ordinary folks in the late 16th century – is a simple 1,2,3,4 & 5, which “scheme” was used as the basis for the reforms of the 16th century. The Anglican Way is based upon ONE Canon of Scripture with TWO Testaments, whose doctrinal message is summarized in THREE Creeds (Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian); and is found in more detail in the decrees and canons of FOUR ecumenical councils [Nicea (325), Constantinople (381) , Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451)] and by the general developments (e.g., Liturgy, threefold Ministry, Church Year, Canon Law and so on) of the first FIVE centuries.
The 1,2,3,4 & 5 are a basis not the whole structure, but without a foundation there is no structure.
So to return to where we began.
The Articles may be boring to many but to those who are committed to the Anglican Way they are exciting and necessary.
Read them!
If the Liturgical Commission of the ECUSA had taken them seriously, they would have produced a much more biblically based and reformed catholic Liturgy for the new Prayer Book of 1979. Why, for example, did not this Commission produce a dynamic equivalent to the services of the classic Prayer Book in contemporary language instead of creating something very different in style, content and doctrine in the Rite II material?
So read the Articles and read the classic BCP and Ordinal along with them! And be pleasantly surprised – even by delight and joy.
October 4, 2005.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Orthodox – where are they?
O that all the “ orthodox” were truly Orthodox,
Even as all the “progressives” are really Liberal.
Even as all the “progressives” are really Liberal.
Since the 1960s the progressives within the Episcopal Church have clearly demonstrated their principles, which may generally be called liberal, even radically liberal.
Progressives have gradually adjusted the received doctrines of God, of the Lord Jesus Christ, of sin, of salvation, of the Last Things, of holiness, of morality and of sacraments in order to make them acceptable to contemporary social and cultural norms and values. And further they have adopted theories of translation from one language to another, of exegesis and interpretation of ancient texts, and of how the Deity reveals will and purpose, which make this large-scale task of changing the content of the Faith (while retaining much of its language) possible and even seem necessary and justified.
So the way God is named and addressed has changed and is changing – He is now also She or It and is always You. The way God is conceived has changed and is changing – Deity is now [a] Being that contains within itself (as a child in the womb) the cosmos and so there is a dynamic relation of interfacing between God and cosmos and cosmos and God. Jesus Christ was the human person whose whole being was in tune with Deity and whose Spirit lives on to bless and heal, to comfort and save. The Trinity is a model of fellowship and co-operation for human beings to follow. Women and men are in the evolutionary process but yet are unique in the cosmos; they are to be treated with dignity and respect and afforded all the rights that they desire and require for their happiness and self-esteem. The Church is the community of those who affirm one another and who see God present in their experience and as the One who accepts them just as they are. Talk of the Last Things is a way of encouraging right living and confidence in Deity as the Source of being and fulfillment and working hard for a better world. And so on.
In this progressivism and liberalism, it is required that the insights and developments of society and culture (which are seen as coming from God as Being) be adopted by the Church and adapted for its growth in maturity and understanding. So full rights for all types and kinds of people are absolutely required as being “divine law” ; and everything that stands in the way of this implementation (e.g., from received Prayer Book, Ordinal, Confession of faith, Canon Law, Tradition and stubborn traditionalists) must be removed (by the democratic process where at all possible). In this process, the acceptance of same-sex partnerships as blessed of God and holy before Him/Her/It is merely the most recent of the examples of the march of progressive liberalism.
The God who encloses the cosmos within its Being has yet more to reveal to those who pay attention and do homage. The ECUSA is not yet at the end of its liberal road. God in Experience has much to show and reveal.
The march of progressive liberalism since the 1960s has not occurred without resistance, often great resistance using millions of dollars. But most of the resisters eventually gave up and either left the Church (notice the tremendous drop in membership from the mid 1960s to the year 1980!) or they stayed on after the arrival of the new Prayer Book in 1979 and in so doing usually adjusted what they would accept and define as “orthodox” to what seemed possible in a situation where liberalism held sway. Thus we have arrived at the situation in 2005 when the working definition of “orthodox,” used both by informed commentators and also by those “conservatives” who use the name “orthodox” of themselves, is something like this: “those who accept the Bible, the Creeds, and the 1979 prayer book and also who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman.” [There are a few congregations left in the ECUSA which have maintained the use of the classic Prayer Book in the edition of 1928. But even this tiny minority has been affected by the general ethos of the ECUSA for it is impossible not to share in some way in the general family likeness!]
What the march of liberalism means (for those with a historical overview) is that the “orthodox” of the ECUSA of 2005 are like the liberals of the late 1960s, for they accept serial monogamy even as they reject same-sex marriage, and they accept divorced and remarried clergy [male and female] even as they reject clergy living in same-sex unions. Further, they are like the liberals of 1980 for they accept the 1979 Prayer Book as THE “Book of Common Prayer” and THE Standard of Faith of the ECUSA. In so doing they accept the use of inclusive language for human beings and agree to translations of the Bible (e.g. the Psalter in the 1979 Prayer Book) which incorporate this inclusivism, and further they accept the “reduced” or “dumbed-down” doctrines of God, Christ and salvation written into the Rite II texts and the Catechism of this Book. Finally, they accept that the classic Anglican Formularies (the classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles, which define the Anglican Way) have no place or authority in the ECUSA for they are merely and only historical documents.
In short, the “Orthodox” is a relative term and the “Orthodox” of 2005 in the ECUSA are less liberal in practice than are the “Progressives” who run the Church. However, since the same-sex issue affects people at various levels of their being, from their guts to their ratiocination, it seems to be (and practically speaking is) the great issue, even the final issue and the basis of massive division, that makes the two sides to seem to be as different as chalk is from cheese. Yet in truth they use the same Prayer Book and its rites, they use the same modern versions of the Bible (all incorporating dynamic equivalency and inclusivism), they talk of personal relationships with Jesus who accepts us “just as I am” , and they belong to the same Institution with its many valued aspects (medical benefits, pensions and so on). The division is really between conservative progressives and liberal progressives! Finding genuine “Orthodox” in the ECUSA is like finding a needle in a haystack.
When will the “Orthodox” of ECUSA realize their true identity and seek really to become Orthodox and return to the fullness of the Anglican Way with its worship, doctrine and discipline, its heritage, style and ethos?
Leaving the ECUSA does not make anyone “Orthodox” for she or he departs as an Episcopalian! He and she must leave behind its formularies and ethos and seek to restore for themselves the classic Formularies, heritage and ethos of the Anglican Way. This is a painful and difficult vocation and many who exit seek to avoid it, thinking that ECUSA without its radical sexual innovations is really OK and so outside the ECUSA they carry on much as before, but with greater liberty – as for example appears to be the case with congregations in the AMiA and those individual congregations which have been “adopted” temporarily by foreign bishops !
Where there is a will there is a way! With God all things are possible – even to unify American Anglicans in truth with unity and unity in truth!
O that the “Orthodox” would really become Orthodox and that the Anglican Way of Reformed Catholicism would prosper again on American soil.
Peter Toon October 4, 2005
Finding Common Ground for the Distressed Anglican Way
A proposal to create discussion and prayerful investigation
Anglicans worldwide are finding that the so-called “Instruments of Unity” are not apparently much good at unifying. In the twenty-first century that have been seen to lack authority and efficacy to create spiritual, centripetal forces to overcome the powerful spiritual, centrifugal forces which presently are tearing the Anglican family apart.
Fine words and sentiments, even wise pronouncements and claims of bonds of affection from Lambeth Palace, the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and Bishops here and there (and from the last Lambeth Conference of 1998) do no seem to be having any positive effect towards unifying dysfunctional, even warring, family members in truth and love. It is clear that the “Instruments of Unity” are obviously not going to be the sole or even primary means of making the divided Anglican family into a genuine Communion of [autonomous] Churches. To those who think that they can and will be, the words of the psalmist speak to us: “Put not your trust in princes….”
What united Anglicans fifty years ago (and for centuries before then), and allowed there to be “bonds of affection”, was a deep sense of having something in common, something that was more than a shared history, heritage and hope. That something in common existed in the center, as it were, of the vital common heritage of devotion and piety, of church planting and growth, of the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, and the creation of dioceses and provinces. It was a shared Liturgy, a profound yet simple Liturgy for daily prayer, Sunday worship, and for baptisms, confirmations, weddings, funerals and services of ordination.
It was Common Prayer, a set of texts/rites for the worship of the Church, and found in The Book of Common Prayer, first published as the expression of Reformed Catholicism for the Church of England in 1549. This Prayer Book easily fitted into the coat pocket of the man and the handbag of the woman, and its primary content was biblical citations and passages, woven together in a structured manner for the glory of God in worship and prayer.
The use of this Liturgy distinguished the Anglican from the Presbyterian, the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic and provided, when used with the Bible, a means of living before God in Christ Jesus in grace and holiness for 356 days a year for congregations, families and individual persons.
Naturally, its primary editions are in English, a fine yet understandable English from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as may be seen in its most used edition, that of 1662, from the reign of Charles II. It is this edition which has been translated into over 150 languages since then, and it is this edition which the large Anglican Church of Nigeria has very recently in 2005 declared to be its standard for worship and doctrine, and also the means it will use for deciding with whom it is in Eucharistic communion! It is this edition which has also been gently edited in such English-speaking countries as Canada, South Africa and the USA to become the Prayer Book of the Anglican Churches in these lands (e.g., 1928 edition in the USA).
What has happened to this Liturgy? Why it is no longer the real basis of Anglican unity in truth?
For an answer we have to look back to the period after World War II, and to note the powerful cultural winds that blew most strongly in the 1960s and early 1970s and deeply affected the practice of Christianity in the West. These gale-force winds not only profoundly changed the R.C. Church; but, they also deeply disturbed and changed the Anglican Communion of Churches, especially in the West/North.
For example, the Lord our God, who had been addressed as “Thou art” for as long as English had been spoken, now became as one of us and was addressed as “You are”! New theories of translation led to the publication of new versions of the Bible and with these were produced new forms of worship. Soon, alongside the true Anglican Liturgy there appeared experimental forms of service, soon collected into “Books of Alterative Services.” And, such was the power of the cultural typhoon in the USA that the Name of the received Liturgy was actually – in an act of piracy by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1976 – transferred to the new “Book of Varied and Alternative Services.” This was a clever move by progressive liberals for it took the Anglican Liturgy out of the official life of this Church.
With the arrival of new Bible translations/paraphrases and new forms of service, together with the arrival of new Morality, new forms of Ministry, new Dress-Codes, new Music, new roles for Bishops and new Architecture, the use of the Anglican Liturgy (with its tremendous heritage of music and art, devotion and piety) was declared by bishops and leaders to be out of date, irrelevant and too complicated for the Church in the modern era. Congregations were told it had to be replaced by exciting new forms to meet the needs of a new era, epoch and opportunity. How else could the young be recruited?
So the unity of the Anglican Way (a unity with comprehensiveness and local particularities), which had existed worldwide through one Liturgy was now in the West (but happily not in Africa and Asia) lost, even as that Liturgy was either banned or beaten down by many sincere but ill-informed clergy. And to fill the vacuum, the emphasis on “the Instruments of Unity” began in earnest. A family, which no longer had any common activity, speech and sentiments, and whose leaders extolled its great variety when meeting with its One LORD had to be kept together! And the way that emerged was an attempt at a weak form of hierarchy. The Archbishop of Canterbury could not be the Pope; the Lambeth Conference could not be an ecumenical council; the Anglican Consultative Council could not be a kind of Vatican Congregations, and the Primates’ Meeting could not be the Meeting of Cardinals with the Pope, but at least they could, as a minimal hierarchy, possibly hold the dysfunctional family together – especially if helped from time to time by Commissions chaired by an Irish Archbishop!
But the Instruments are not fulfilling the confidence placed in them! Yet they are here to stay, at least for a decade and more. So I am not suggesting that Anglicans abandon the Instruments of Unity; but, that they look to them with realism and not as the major means of salvation and unity in truth for the Anglican Family. The Instruments can surely help but only if there is a greater force for unity present and at work.
Therefore, what I suggest is that Anglicans at the grass roots dare to do what their leaders in the West would not have them do. I recommend that serious thought and diligent prayer be given to the possibility of the restoration of the One Liturgy as the basis [the standard Formulary] of the Anglican Way. After all, most of the African Provinces do not need any convincing for they are basically there already!
And as the Episcopal Church of the USA has been a cause of much of the present dysfunctional life of the Anglican family, perhaps the USA is the place from which to launch’ and then take to its practical outworking, this suggestion.
However, for this proposal for One Liturgy to have any opportunity to work I think that the way in which The Book of Common Prayer (1662) is now normally available (as a compact, small hardbound book in Roman type) has to be changed. That is, changed not in the actual content of the Liturgy but in the layout of the pages, the font, the type, and the binding.
Before Vatican II made possible the arrival of the Roman Mass in the vernacular, there were various Missals in which the Tridentine Latin text was on one side and a dignified translation into English, or French, or German or whatever on the other side. With this model in mind, I suggest that as a major means for the unifying of the Anglican Way, in the West as a starter, that there be a conscious recovery of the Anglican Liturgy in a new format which preserves the text of the 1662 edition on one side of the page and (to take account of what has happened to addressing God since the 1960s in the West/North) on the other side there be a parallel text in contemporary English, where God is addressed as “You”. In this arrangement, the classic text would be the standard of doctrine (Formulary) but either text could be used for public worship. Further, the accompanying ceremonial, music and prayers for local persons and needs would be determined locally for the aim is uniformity in formulary but comprehensiveness in use.
[Where there are differences between the 1662 edition and say the 1928 USA edition then options could be built in for the use of the latter where that was desired; however, in order to have a universal standard, the 1662 edition would need to be seen as the primary edition and that by which the Anglican Way is first identified and defined.]
To make sense of this One Anglican Liturgy, the use of any other types of liturgy would truly have to return (as was intended when alternative services were first produced in the 1960s) to being seen as occasional alternatives to the use of the standard Anglican Liturgy and not as the primary liturgy itself. Further, they would be subject to the doctrine contained in the Formulary.
If the pioneer printing of this edition of 1662 with parallel texts does not contain the text of the Epistle and Gospel for each Sunday and Holy Day but simply states what are the passages to be read (and suggests the appropriate Versions to be used), then the book itself will not have too many pages. There will be need to bear in mind in the contemporary English part the possibility of canticles and versicles being chanted or sung and this will call for special care and expertise in preparation. Likewise the contemporary version of the Psalter will pose problems for chanting and will probably not be done initially as part of the pioneer edition of the parallel texts.
Thus it would appear that what needs to be done is for there to be the preparation by a small team of this edition of parallel texts based on the BCP 1662, then for this to be widely circulated in order for there to be opportunity for people all over the West, but especially in North America, to see what it looks like and feels like, and what are the possibilities of its use. Waiting for an international meeting to agree to all this and to appoint a committee to get on with it is not realistic. A start has to be made and if the product has worth it will gain acceptance and from the pioneer edition will develop a further edition which will then truly compete for its true position as the Anglican Liturgy by causing its competitors of recent vintage to step down from their high places. During this process, probably the weight of the Nigerian and Ugandan and other Churches will be added to the restoration of the One Anglican Liturgy as both the way of worship and the Formulary.
Of course ECUSA will not (unless a mighty wind from heaven blows through it) have any interest in this proposal, but surely those who see themselves as “the orthodox” within that Church, along with the Anglican Mission in America and other bodies of Anglicans outside of the ECUSA or at least not in harmony with its leadership, will see the restoration of the classic Anglican model of One Liturgy which is also One Formulary as at least a possible way forward as a way towards unity in truth both in North America and in the whole world. How can anyone who is truly Anglican, that is Reformed Catholic Christian in mind and heart, be opposed to this proposal if he or she desires to see the revival and unity of the Anglican Way?
(Please note that the Prayer Book Society of the USA has prepared a book of parallel texts for the Daily Office, the Order for Holy Communion, the Litany and the Collects, with the title, Worshipping in the Anglican Way [from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1 800 727 1928]. This book is based on the BCP1928 not the 1662 and is not part of the above proposal, but is an experimental means of leading people through a contemporary text to the classic text.)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Anglicans worldwide are finding that the so-called “Instruments of Unity” are not apparently much good at unifying. In the twenty-first century that have been seen to lack authority and efficacy to create spiritual, centripetal forces to overcome the powerful spiritual, centrifugal forces which presently are tearing the Anglican family apart.
Fine words and sentiments, even wise pronouncements and claims of bonds of affection from Lambeth Palace, the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and Bishops here and there (and from the last Lambeth Conference of 1998) do no seem to be having any positive effect towards unifying dysfunctional, even warring, family members in truth and love. It is clear that the “Instruments of Unity” are obviously not going to be the sole or even primary means of making the divided Anglican family into a genuine Communion of [autonomous] Churches. To those who think that they can and will be, the words of the psalmist speak to us: “Put not your trust in princes….”
What united Anglicans fifty years ago (and for centuries before then), and allowed there to be “bonds of affection”, was a deep sense of having something in common, something that was more than a shared history, heritage and hope. That something in common existed in the center, as it were, of the vital common heritage of devotion and piety, of church planting and growth, of the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, and the creation of dioceses and provinces. It was a shared Liturgy, a profound yet simple Liturgy for daily prayer, Sunday worship, and for baptisms, confirmations, weddings, funerals and services of ordination.
It was Common Prayer, a set of texts/rites for the worship of the Church, and found in The Book of Common Prayer, first published as the expression of Reformed Catholicism for the Church of England in 1549. This Prayer Book easily fitted into the coat pocket of the man and the handbag of the woman, and its primary content was biblical citations and passages, woven together in a structured manner for the glory of God in worship and prayer.
The use of this Liturgy distinguished the Anglican from the Presbyterian, the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic and provided, when used with the Bible, a means of living before God in Christ Jesus in grace and holiness for 356 days a year for congregations, families and individual persons.
Naturally, its primary editions are in English, a fine yet understandable English from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as may be seen in its most used edition, that of 1662, from the reign of Charles II. It is this edition which has been translated into over 150 languages since then, and it is this edition which the large Anglican Church of Nigeria has very recently in 2005 declared to be its standard for worship and doctrine, and also the means it will use for deciding with whom it is in Eucharistic communion! It is this edition which has also been gently edited in such English-speaking countries as Canada, South Africa and the USA to become the Prayer Book of the Anglican Churches in these lands (e.g., 1928 edition in the USA).
What has happened to this Liturgy? Why it is no longer the real basis of Anglican unity in truth?
For an answer we have to look back to the period after World War II, and to note the powerful cultural winds that blew most strongly in the 1960s and early 1970s and deeply affected the practice of Christianity in the West. These gale-force winds not only profoundly changed the R.C. Church; but, they also deeply disturbed and changed the Anglican Communion of Churches, especially in the West/North.
For example, the Lord our God, who had been addressed as “Thou art” for as long as English had been spoken, now became as one of us and was addressed as “You are”! New theories of translation led to the publication of new versions of the Bible and with these were produced new forms of worship. Soon, alongside the true Anglican Liturgy there appeared experimental forms of service, soon collected into “Books of Alterative Services.” And, such was the power of the cultural typhoon in the USA that the Name of the received Liturgy was actually – in an act of piracy by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1976 – transferred to the new “Book of Varied and Alternative Services.” This was a clever move by progressive liberals for it took the Anglican Liturgy out of the official life of this Church.
With the arrival of new Bible translations/paraphrases and new forms of service, together with the arrival of new Morality, new forms of Ministry, new Dress-Codes, new Music, new roles for Bishops and new Architecture, the use of the Anglican Liturgy (with its tremendous heritage of music and art, devotion and piety) was declared by bishops and leaders to be out of date, irrelevant and too complicated for the Church in the modern era. Congregations were told it had to be replaced by exciting new forms to meet the needs of a new era, epoch and opportunity. How else could the young be recruited?
So the unity of the Anglican Way (a unity with comprehensiveness and local particularities), which had existed worldwide through one Liturgy was now in the West (but happily not in Africa and Asia) lost, even as that Liturgy was either banned or beaten down by many sincere but ill-informed clergy. And to fill the vacuum, the emphasis on “the Instruments of Unity” began in earnest. A family, which no longer had any common activity, speech and sentiments, and whose leaders extolled its great variety when meeting with its One LORD had to be kept together! And the way that emerged was an attempt at a weak form of hierarchy. The Archbishop of Canterbury could not be the Pope; the Lambeth Conference could not be an ecumenical council; the Anglican Consultative Council could not be a kind of Vatican Congregations, and the Primates’ Meeting could not be the Meeting of Cardinals with the Pope, but at least they could, as a minimal hierarchy, possibly hold the dysfunctional family together – especially if helped from time to time by Commissions chaired by an Irish Archbishop!
But the Instruments are not fulfilling the confidence placed in them! Yet they are here to stay, at least for a decade and more. So I am not suggesting that Anglicans abandon the Instruments of Unity; but, that they look to them with realism and not as the major means of salvation and unity in truth for the Anglican Family. The Instruments can surely help but only if there is a greater force for unity present and at work.
Therefore, what I suggest is that Anglicans at the grass roots dare to do what their leaders in the West would not have them do. I recommend that serious thought and diligent prayer be given to the possibility of the restoration of the One Liturgy as the basis [the standard Formulary] of the Anglican Way. After all, most of the African Provinces do not need any convincing for they are basically there already!
And as the Episcopal Church of the USA has been a cause of much of the present dysfunctional life of the Anglican family, perhaps the USA is the place from which to launch’ and then take to its practical outworking, this suggestion.
However, for this proposal for One Liturgy to have any opportunity to work I think that the way in which The Book of Common Prayer (1662) is now normally available (as a compact, small hardbound book in Roman type) has to be changed. That is, changed not in the actual content of the Liturgy but in the layout of the pages, the font, the type, and the binding.
Before Vatican II made possible the arrival of the Roman Mass in the vernacular, there were various Missals in which the Tridentine Latin text was on one side and a dignified translation into English, or French, or German or whatever on the other side. With this model in mind, I suggest that as a major means for the unifying of the Anglican Way, in the West as a starter, that there be a conscious recovery of the Anglican Liturgy in a new format which preserves the text of the 1662 edition on one side of the page and (to take account of what has happened to addressing God since the 1960s in the West/North) on the other side there be a parallel text in contemporary English, where God is addressed as “You”. In this arrangement, the classic text would be the standard of doctrine (Formulary) but either text could be used for public worship. Further, the accompanying ceremonial, music and prayers for local persons and needs would be determined locally for the aim is uniformity in formulary but comprehensiveness in use.
[Where there are differences between the 1662 edition and say the 1928 USA edition then options could be built in for the use of the latter where that was desired; however, in order to have a universal standard, the 1662 edition would need to be seen as the primary edition and that by which the Anglican Way is first identified and defined.]
To make sense of this One Anglican Liturgy, the use of any other types of liturgy would truly have to return (as was intended when alternative services were first produced in the 1960s) to being seen as occasional alternatives to the use of the standard Anglican Liturgy and not as the primary liturgy itself. Further, they would be subject to the doctrine contained in the Formulary.
If the pioneer printing of this edition of 1662 with parallel texts does not contain the text of the Epistle and Gospel for each Sunday and Holy Day but simply states what are the passages to be read (and suggests the appropriate Versions to be used), then the book itself will not have too many pages. There will be need to bear in mind in the contemporary English part the possibility of canticles and versicles being chanted or sung and this will call for special care and expertise in preparation. Likewise the contemporary version of the Psalter will pose problems for chanting and will probably not be done initially as part of the pioneer edition of the parallel texts.
Thus it would appear that what needs to be done is for there to be the preparation by a small team of this edition of parallel texts based on the BCP 1662, then for this to be widely circulated in order for there to be opportunity for people all over the West, but especially in North America, to see what it looks like and feels like, and what are the possibilities of its use. Waiting for an international meeting to agree to all this and to appoint a committee to get on with it is not realistic. A start has to be made and if the product has worth it will gain acceptance and from the pioneer edition will develop a further edition which will then truly compete for its true position as the Anglican Liturgy by causing its competitors of recent vintage to step down from their high places. During this process, probably the weight of the Nigerian and Ugandan and other Churches will be added to the restoration of the One Anglican Liturgy as both the way of worship and the Formulary.
Of course ECUSA will not (unless a mighty wind from heaven blows through it) have any interest in this proposal, but surely those who see themselves as “the orthodox” within that Church, along with the Anglican Mission in America and other bodies of Anglicans outside of the ECUSA or at least not in harmony with its leadership, will see the restoration of the classic Anglican model of One Liturgy which is also One Formulary as at least a possible way forward as a way towards unity in truth both in North America and in the whole world. How can anyone who is truly Anglican, that is Reformed Catholic Christian in mind and heart, be opposed to this proposal if he or she desires to see the revival and unity of the Anglican Way?
(Please note that the Prayer Book Society of the USA has prepared a book of parallel texts for the Daily Office, the Order for Holy Communion, the Litany and the Collects, with the title, Worshipping in the Anglican Way [from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1 800 727 1928]. This book is based on the BCP1928 not the 1662 and is not part of the above proposal, but is an experimental means of leading people through a contemporary text to the classic text.)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)