A discussion starter
With the attempts by the Anglican Communion Network (at the request of the concerned Anglican Primates) to unify the Anglican witness and jurisdictions in the USA, the question of basic commitments of the presently divided groups is raised. And, it appears, the leadership of The Network is prepared to move towards embracing those Continuing Anglicans who hold to The Affirmation of St Louis by adjusting its own doctrinal basis to accommodate this 1977 statement and thus embrace these good people.
Let us then examine this statement and its origins in relation to the historic Anglican Formularies.
Those Episcopalians from the USA and Anglicans from Canada, who met in St Louis in 1977 and signed The Affirmation, appear to have believed that the Episcopal Church of the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada had ceased to be orthodox Christian Churches; and thus secession from them was a duty before God. The immediate reason for the departure to form the Continuing Anglican Church was the adoption by both Churches of women as presbyters (priests); but, the bigger issues in the background concerned faith and morality as well.
The signers state their commitment of seeking to maintain unity with the See of Canterbury (if Canterbury remains orthodox?), and, doctrinally, to the authoritative Scriptures, to the three Creeds (Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian), to the dogma of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and to the doctrine and use of the Seven Sacraments. In terms of liturgy they express commitment to the 1928 edition of the BCP in the USA and to the 1962 edition in Canada. There is no mention of The Anglican Missal.
When you compare this Statement with the Constitutions and Canon Law of virtually all of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion you notice that in The Affirmation there is no specific mention of The Ordinal and The Thirty-Nine Articles (which are separate books to the BCP but are normally bound with it, so that all three Anglican Formularies are within the same cover).
The pew editions of the 1928 and 1962 editions, as they were in print in 1977, contained The Ordinal and The Articles. However, The Affirmation refers to neither and so it is not clear whether either or both were accepted.
Common sense would normally cause one to suppose that these two historic and classic Formularies of the Anglican Way would be taken for granted. However, other clear statements in The Affirmation tend to cast doubt on the matter, especially with reference to The Articles of Religion.
First of all, we have noted that there is a commitment to the doctrine of all the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Such a position has been held as a private opinion by some anglo-catholics and high churchmen since the seventeenth century; but it has never been officially part of any Anglican confession of faith or constitution. The problem is obviously with the Seventh Council where the topic is no longer The Trinity or The Person of Christ but icons and images; the veneration of icons was approved and given a theological foundation. A similar doctrine was set forth eight or so centuries later by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. If The Articles are authoritative then the doctrine of the Seventh Council and the Council of Trent on icons and images cannot be regarded as part of the Reformed Catholicism of the Anglican Way (see Article XXII and the Homily “On the Peril of Idolatry”, Article XXXV).
Secondly, there is commitment in The Affirmation to seven sacraments as in the teaching of the Council of Trent. This is specifically rejected by The Articles (see XXV), which teach that there are two real, dominical Sacraments and five commonly called sacraments (in the medieval Church and into the 16th century). It is also rejected by the content of The Book of Common Prayer in any of its authorized editions, for here again there are only two Sacraments together with other rites that were previously in Roman Catholic dress called sacraments (e.g. Confirmation and Holy Matrimony).
Conclusion
It is difficult to come to clarity on the question of whether the Affirmers in 1977 saw themselves as Anglo-Catholics committed to historic Anglicanism (as set forth for example in The Solemn Declaration of 1893 and printed in the 1962 Canadian BCP), who allowed their private and cherished opinions to influence their description of the Anglican Way, OR that leaving the two mainline Churches provided them with the opportunity to reform Anglicanism in a Rome-ward direction and they took this opportunity to do so, believing they were forging a new and better path for others to walk in.
Certainly The Affirmation of St Louis goes beyond the normal statement of The Anglican Way and thus probably cannot be signed or accepted by those who are committed to the classic Anglican Formularies as they are stated, for example, in The Solemn Declaration of 1893 and in the Constitution of The Anglican Church of Nigeria, and presented in many editions of The Prayer Book.
The Network, it seems, faces a dilemma. If it embraces the Seventh Council then it steps ahead of most of world Anglicanism and away from the historic Formularies of the Anglican Way. If it does not, then it will not win the hearts of the Continuers.
(I deal with the 7th council and its dogma on icons in my book on The Seven Councils , entitled: YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER. JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE TEACHING OF THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, Preservation Press, 1996.)
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon Ash Wednesday, 2006.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Ash Wednesday – Why no Collect on Fasting?
People ask me: Why does The Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1662, 1928) delay the Collect on Fasting to the First Sunday in Lent when it should , by rights, be prayed on the First Day of Lent?
The Collect for the first Sunday is one of the very few such prayers addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than to his Father, and it does concern the discipline of abstinence and fasting. It was written by Archbishop Cranmer and begins,
O Lord, who for our sake didst fast forty days and forty nights; Give us grace to use such abstinence, that, our flesh being subdued to the Spirit, we may ever obey thy godly motions in righteousness and true holiness, to thy honour and glory…..
The Collect appointed for Ash Wednesday prays to the Father:
Almighty and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent; Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
And this Collect contains no reference to fasting at all.
The answer to the question is that back in the late patristic period when the Christian Year, with its Collects, Epistles and Gospels, was created Lent began on the Sunday which was called Quadragesima (previous Sundays being named Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima). Only later was the beginning put back to the previous Wednesday. So in the tradition of the Sarum Use (Latin usage in England before the arrival of the BCP in 1549) although Lent began literally forty days (excluding Sundays) before Easter on the Wednesday (called Ash W.), the Collect for the First Sunday testified to an earlier period when Lent began on the Sunday which was 40 days or so before Easter.
One further explanation is needed: the reformed Church of England did not use the actual medieval Sarum Collect for Quadragesima (which had a theology of works righteousness) but it did retain its theme of fasting in the powerful new Prayer written by Archbishop Cranmer.
Now back to Ash Wednesday’ Collect and its origins. It seems to have been composed by the Archbishop with the Collect used at the benediction of the ashes on Ash Wednesday in the Sarum Use, before the ashes were laid upon the heads of the members of the congregation with the words, “Remember, man, that thou art ashes and unto ashes shalt thou return.”
Here is the Sarum Collect in English translation, which seeks to preserve the style of the original:
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast compassion upon all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost not impute the sins of men by reason of their penitence; who also dost succour those who labour in necessity; Vouchsafe to bless [+] and sanctify [+] these ashes, which thou has appointed us to bear upon our heads after the manner of the Ninevites, in token of humiliation and holy devotion, and in order to the washing away of our offences; and, by this invocation of thy holy name, grant that all those that shall bear them upon their heads, to implore thereby thy mercy, may obtain from thee both the pardon of all their offences, and also grace so to begin today their holy fasts, that on the day of Resurrection, they may be counted worthy to approach to the holy Paschal feast, and hereafter to receive everlasting glory. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Cranmer’s Collect preserves the Latin style of the use of relative clause (in contrast to the modern “You have compassion upon all”) but is both shorter and designed to be free of any possible suggestion of works-righteousness.
Lent, of course, is not about historical research but is about devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. Let your abstinence and fasting be adorned in Gospel righteousness.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
The Collect for the first Sunday is one of the very few such prayers addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than to his Father, and it does concern the discipline of abstinence and fasting. It was written by Archbishop Cranmer and begins,
O Lord, who for our sake didst fast forty days and forty nights; Give us grace to use such abstinence, that, our flesh being subdued to the Spirit, we may ever obey thy godly motions in righteousness and true holiness, to thy honour and glory…..
The Collect appointed for Ash Wednesday prays to the Father:
Almighty and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent; Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
And this Collect contains no reference to fasting at all.
The answer to the question is that back in the late patristic period when the Christian Year, with its Collects, Epistles and Gospels, was created Lent began on the Sunday which was called Quadragesima (previous Sundays being named Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima). Only later was the beginning put back to the previous Wednesday. So in the tradition of the Sarum Use (Latin usage in England before the arrival of the BCP in 1549) although Lent began literally forty days (excluding Sundays) before Easter on the Wednesday (called Ash W.), the Collect for the First Sunday testified to an earlier period when Lent began on the Sunday which was 40 days or so before Easter.
One further explanation is needed: the reformed Church of England did not use the actual medieval Sarum Collect for Quadragesima (which had a theology of works righteousness) but it did retain its theme of fasting in the powerful new Prayer written by Archbishop Cranmer.
Now back to Ash Wednesday’ Collect and its origins. It seems to have been composed by the Archbishop with the Collect used at the benediction of the ashes on Ash Wednesday in the Sarum Use, before the ashes were laid upon the heads of the members of the congregation with the words, “Remember, man, that thou art ashes and unto ashes shalt thou return.”
Here is the Sarum Collect in English translation, which seeks to preserve the style of the original:
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast compassion upon all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost not impute the sins of men by reason of their penitence; who also dost succour those who labour in necessity; Vouchsafe to bless [+] and sanctify [+] these ashes, which thou has appointed us to bear upon our heads after the manner of the Ninevites, in token of humiliation and holy devotion, and in order to the washing away of our offences; and, by this invocation of thy holy name, grant that all those that shall bear them upon their heads, to implore thereby thy mercy, may obtain from thee both the pardon of all their offences, and also grace so to begin today their holy fasts, that on the day of Resurrection, they may be counted worthy to approach to the holy Paschal feast, and hereafter to receive everlasting glory. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Cranmer’s Collect preserves the Latin style of the use of relative clause (in contrast to the modern “You have compassion upon all”) but is both shorter and designed to be free of any possible suggestion of works-righteousness.
Lent, of course, is not about historical research but is about devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. Let your abstinence and fasting be adorned in Gospel righteousness.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Paralysis through Analysis: Facing major issues in Anglicanism
When facing a major problem in church or state, one way to give the appearance of seeking a solution, and also, at the same time, to ensure that it is not truly solved, is to set up boards of enquiry, commissions of study, and investigations of facts: and then to debate their findings and proposals with vigor and in depth and detail. Meanwhile, the problem does not go away but becomes part of the context and scene in which the ecclesial or the political life continues. Eventually what was originally seen as a major problem causing a major crisis is accepted by the majority, through exhaustion or boredom or because “there are other things to deal with and we must move on.”
Paralysis through Analysis is a well tried way in church and state to face a problem without doing anything vital about it. It is often, but not necessarily always, the open door by which innovations enter the common life, and do so against what was originally a majority intention.
With respect to the current crisis in Episcopalianism & Anglicanism over the status and authority of the Bible in the moral and relational lives of human beings as male and female persons, we can see the real possibility of “paralysis through analysis” occurring down the line within the next five years or earlier. Even now people are tired of the subject and want to stop reading, talking and listening about it. Yet they are being counseled to wait for the next General Convention, the next Primates’ Meeting, the next Lambeth Conference and the next something else.
Looking back on the history of the Episcopal Church since the 1960s, one can see that from the 1970s (the decade of “rights” in the USA) there have been continuing debates, studies, commissions, reports and controversies within the General Convention and diocesan conventions about what in ecclesial terms it means to give full human rights to those who denominate themselves as “Gay, Bisexual and Lesbian.” By the beginning of the twenty-first century the topic had been analyzed from many perspectives – see the published Reports of the General Conventions from 1973 onwards for the details. There have been partial acceptances and partial rejections of “full rights” in a variety of resolutions. Thus by 2004 there was exhaustion and near paralysis of the majority who, set aside the protests of the evangelicals of the American Anglican Council and others and opened the door for Gene Robinson, a self-professed “gay” man, to be made a bishop.
The attack on the ECUSA for its innovatory decision is now serving to make the majority in its leadership rise to the defense of “the beloved Episcopal Church” and to its democratic principles and also to be prepared to join in its openness to moving with the God of surprises into the future, ready to be guided by him/her, in the prophetic task of making Christianity credible and relevant to post-modern society.
Looking back we can see that since the 1960s, the Episcopal Church has adopted major innovations which also, after paralysis through analysis, became part of the mainstream of the Church’s life. For example, in the 1970s (the decade of rights) the Episcopal Church changed its internal character and its external face by:
(a) coming to terms with the divorce culture and the new sexuality by changing the nature and content of its canon on marriage in 1973 and then of its marriage service in the new prayer book (passed 1976 & 1979);
(b) coming to terms with the powerful feminist movement by making deaconesses into deacons (1970) and then passing the legislation to allow the ordaining women to all three orders of the Ministry (1976); and
(c) changing the doctrine of the Church on the principle “the law of praying is the law of believing” by creating a new prayer book with varied services and varied doctrines and calling it by the hallowed name of the traditional book, “The Book of Common Prayer” (1979).
In the latter case, the Church was exhausted after using and discussing a series of trial services from the late 1960s onwards and so readily accepted the end of the process, a new book, to bring some stability. The new book brought new doctrine and rejected the classic Anglican Way as it set aside the received Formularies. In the former cases people were weary of the incessant public debates from the 1960s onwards and so decided it was easier to go with the flow than keep up resistance. Now in 2006, divorced and remarried clergy and laity comprise at least a quarter, and possibly up to a half of the Church’s membership; women clergy are a fixed part of the scene and only a few members remember what “The Book of Common Prayer” really means as a historic title of one of the most important books ever published in the English language, a book known in the USA in its editions of 1662, 1789, 1892 and 1928.
Accepting all this, it is also true, to change the metaphor, that there can only be genuine treatment for sickness if the sickness if rightly diagnosed. And it is surely obvious that the sickness of the Episcopal Church – and with it of Anglicanism in the West – is much more than having new doctrine and practice of sexual relations, approved and blessed inside churches.
My own view is that if we look at all the major innovations since World War II we see that they all are aspects of a general rejection of what used to be called Reformed Catholicism, the Anglican Way solidly based upon the Holy Scriptures and secondarily, upon the historic, classic Formularies (The Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal). To put it solely in biblical terms, they represent a growing and accumulating setting aside of God’s revealed order for creation and the new covenant of grace. In this perspective, the consecrating of Gene R. is the icing on the cake of apostasy and the sign of what has been going on in terms of the worship of the new Episcopal deity, “the God of surprises.”
Before a cure there must be a diagnosis, but there must come a time when the surgery is attempted and the new regime of treatment is begun. Diagnosis must not lead to paralysis.
To change the metaphor, after analysis, there must be not paralysis but a major U-turn on the road, and a walking back to the adoption of the revealed, divine order set forth in Scripture and Formularies. This is much more then returning to the status quo of say the General Convention’s position in 2000. It is in simple terms the creation of a new Province of the Anglican Communion in North America, solidly based upon the Holy Scriptures and the received Anglican Formularies (regrettably ditched by the present ECUSA).
To avoid paralysis through analysis there must be decisive action; cooperative and coordinated. Merely waiting for this and that to happen and hoping that the crisis and problem will go away is to accept paralysis as the order of the day! Let there be diagnosis and then action.
[See Peter Toon, EPISCOPAL INNOVATIONS 1960-2004. Theological and Historical Reflection on the current crisis in ECUSA (published March 5th, 2006 as a 64 page booklet by The Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA – view it on pdf on www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 and order by calling 1-800-727-1928; special prices for bulk orders.)]
petertoon@msn.com Shrove Tuesday 2006 Dr Peter Toon
Paralysis through Analysis is a well tried way in church and state to face a problem without doing anything vital about it. It is often, but not necessarily always, the open door by which innovations enter the common life, and do so against what was originally a majority intention.
With respect to the current crisis in Episcopalianism & Anglicanism over the status and authority of the Bible in the moral and relational lives of human beings as male and female persons, we can see the real possibility of “paralysis through analysis” occurring down the line within the next five years or earlier. Even now people are tired of the subject and want to stop reading, talking and listening about it. Yet they are being counseled to wait for the next General Convention, the next Primates’ Meeting, the next Lambeth Conference and the next something else.
Looking back on the history of the Episcopal Church since the 1960s, one can see that from the 1970s (the decade of “rights” in the USA) there have been continuing debates, studies, commissions, reports and controversies within the General Convention and diocesan conventions about what in ecclesial terms it means to give full human rights to those who denominate themselves as “Gay, Bisexual and Lesbian.” By the beginning of the twenty-first century the topic had been analyzed from many perspectives – see the published Reports of the General Conventions from 1973 onwards for the details. There have been partial acceptances and partial rejections of “full rights” in a variety of resolutions. Thus by 2004 there was exhaustion and near paralysis of the majority who, set aside the protests of the evangelicals of the American Anglican Council and others and opened the door for Gene Robinson, a self-professed “gay” man, to be made a bishop.
The attack on the ECUSA for its innovatory decision is now serving to make the majority in its leadership rise to the defense of “the beloved Episcopal Church” and to its democratic principles and also to be prepared to join in its openness to moving with the God of surprises into the future, ready to be guided by him/her, in the prophetic task of making Christianity credible and relevant to post-modern society.
Looking back we can see that since the 1960s, the Episcopal Church has adopted major innovations which also, after paralysis through analysis, became part of the mainstream of the Church’s life. For example, in the 1970s (the decade of rights) the Episcopal Church changed its internal character and its external face by:
(a) coming to terms with the divorce culture and the new sexuality by changing the nature and content of its canon on marriage in 1973 and then of its marriage service in the new prayer book (passed 1976 & 1979);
(b) coming to terms with the powerful feminist movement by making deaconesses into deacons (1970) and then passing the legislation to allow the ordaining women to all three orders of the Ministry (1976); and
(c) changing the doctrine of the Church on the principle “the law of praying is the law of believing” by creating a new prayer book with varied services and varied doctrines and calling it by the hallowed name of the traditional book, “The Book of Common Prayer” (1979).
In the latter case, the Church was exhausted after using and discussing a series of trial services from the late 1960s onwards and so readily accepted the end of the process, a new book, to bring some stability. The new book brought new doctrine and rejected the classic Anglican Way as it set aside the received Formularies. In the former cases people were weary of the incessant public debates from the 1960s onwards and so decided it was easier to go with the flow than keep up resistance. Now in 2006, divorced and remarried clergy and laity comprise at least a quarter, and possibly up to a half of the Church’s membership; women clergy are a fixed part of the scene and only a few members remember what “The Book of Common Prayer” really means as a historic title of one of the most important books ever published in the English language, a book known in the USA in its editions of 1662, 1789, 1892 and 1928.
Accepting all this, it is also true, to change the metaphor, that there can only be genuine treatment for sickness if the sickness if rightly diagnosed. And it is surely obvious that the sickness of the Episcopal Church – and with it of Anglicanism in the West – is much more than having new doctrine and practice of sexual relations, approved and blessed inside churches.
My own view is that if we look at all the major innovations since World War II we see that they all are aspects of a general rejection of what used to be called Reformed Catholicism, the Anglican Way solidly based upon the Holy Scriptures and secondarily, upon the historic, classic Formularies (The Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal). To put it solely in biblical terms, they represent a growing and accumulating setting aside of God’s revealed order for creation and the new covenant of grace. In this perspective, the consecrating of Gene R. is the icing on the cake of apostasy and the sign of what has been going on in terms of the worship of the new Episcopal deity, “the God of surprises.”
Before a cure there must be a diagnosis, but there must come a time when the surgery is attempted and the new regime of treatment is begun. Diagnosis must not lead to paralysis.
To change the metaphor, after analysis, there must be not paralysis but a major U-turn on the road, and a walking back to the adoption of the revealed, divine order set forth in Scripture and Formularies. This is much more then returning to the status quo of say the General Convention’s position in 2000. It is in simple terms the creation of a new Province of the Anglican Communion in North America, solidly based upon the Holy Scriptures and the received Anglican Formularies (regrettably ditched by the present ECUSA).
To avoid paralysis through analysis there must be decisive action; cooperative and coordinated. Merely waiting for this and that to happen and hoping that the crisis and problem will go away is to accept paralysis as the order of the day! Let there be diagnosis and then action.
[See Peter Toon, EPISCOPAL INNOVATIONS 1960-2004. Theological and Historical Reflection on the current crisis in ECUSA (published March 5th, 2006 as a 64 page booklet by The Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA – view it on pdf on www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 and order by calling 1-800-727-1928; special prices for bulk orders.)]
petertoon@msn.com Shrove Tuesday 2006 Dr Peter Toon
Monday, February 27, 2006
The Windsor Report – not everything therein is good!
Those who call themselves “orthodox” in the Episcopal Church of the USA and other provinces of the Anglican Communion tend to view the Windsor Report (2004) from the Lambeth Commission of Communion as a good thing, both in general and in specifics.
However, there are voices to be heard and words to be read from the left and the right that raise important questions about what this Report actually assumed and commended on a variety of themes.
Dr Ashley Null, author of a book on Cranmer (Oxford UP 2000) and Canon Theologian of the ECUSA diocese of Western Kansas, has expressed serious concern as to the view stated by the Report as to how the people of God are to relate to the Bible from now on in the Anglican Communion. His concern arises because he knows, as well as any other person in the whole world, the classic position of the Holy Scriptures in the Anglican Way -- as stated by Archbishop Cranmer in the Preface to the Great Bible, in his Homily on the reading of Scripture in the First Book of Homilies, and in Articles VI, VII, & XX of The Thirty-Nine Articles.
Dr Null understands that what the Commission is recommending in its Report , in order to maintain the Communion as a diversity in unity is the equivalent in Anglican terms of an authoritative teaching magisterium (the Archbishop of Canterbury and a panel of advisers, in close liaison with the Primates). Bound together by a covenant, the provinces will be also bound to accept in major matters of controversy the final ruling of the magisterium.
Let us be clear. The Anglican Communion is a very long way from agreeing to either a mutually binding covenant or to a teaching magisterium. However, what the ongoing controversy and crisis over “same-sex stuff” has brought out into the open is the variety of ways in which the Bible is interpreted by Anglicans. And different approaches to the Bible lead to the discovery therein of different, even opposing doctrines. If the Anglican Communion is to survive as a diversity in unity and unity in diversity it will certainly need to agree at least on which forms of biblical interpretation are either acceptable or not.
The classic, traditional position, first stated with great power and clarity by Cranmer is that the basic message from God given in the Bible, One Canon with Two Testaments, is clear to all. This message is that everlasting salvation is given by God through and in Jesus Christ, and with it a basic form of doctrine and morality is presented. So what is essential to salvation is clearly there in the Bible, understood in its plain sense and in the light of the entire canon by the rule of non-contradiction. No teaching magisterium is needed to do this job for the baptized people of God; and further the national Church, and the even the Church international meeting in Council, does not have the authority to require of any local church or individual Christian for eternal salvation anything that is not clearly taught in Scripture or may not be deduced from the clear teaching of Scripture.
We are now at a point in Anglican history where some of the sophisticated teachers of Biblical Studies in colleges and seminaries, together with some bishops, are claiming that the received position of the clarity of Scripture on basic faith and morality is wholly wrong, and that the Bible only opens up its unique message with the use of special tools of interpretation, as sued by scholars. One may see these tools being used in To Set Our Hope on Christ, the book produced for the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA by a team of scholars, and then presented to the Anglican Communion as a way of justifying the new ECUSA doctrine with respect to the holiness of same-sex unions. (see my response in Same-Sex Affection, A Response to Presiding Bishop Griswold - 1-800-727-1928 or www.anglicanmarketplace.com )
What these “western” enlightened Anglicans are saying is that the Cranmerian approach to the Bible (a) is totally outdated and will not work in post-modern society, (b) was taken by missionaries to Africa and is the cause of the “fundamentalism” of African bishops and Primates, and (c) must be replaced by an approach to the Bible that is consonant with modern sensibilities and knowledge.
To be specific -- the Cranmerian approach states that sexual morality is clear in the Bible and is given in the form of commandments and exhortations and by these we know the will of God for today for sexual relations.
In contrast, one approach amongst theologians from mainline churches suggests that the key to understand what the Bible really teaches is by identifying with Jesus as he is presented at his most different from others in the Gospels – that is as the friend of the outcasts of society, as the Saviour of the excluded, as the healer of those rejected by their families, and so on. This true and vital Jesus stands against sexism and patriarchy and discrimination and homophobia and in his embrace of all deserving souls he blesses loving, faithful, covenanted same-sex partnerships. So here the Jesus of parts of the Gospels is the internal critic of much of the content, doctrine and morality of the Bible! And this all-inclusive Jesus commends and defends what the traditional Jesus says is sin and immorality.
Thus in the confusing array of doctrines and forms of morality arrived at by new and different methods in interpretation there is certainly diversity but no unity. So the Report suggests that to keep everyone together there is needed a central authority which after discernment can make a judgment and say “This is the Anglican Way” and then all the Provinces with their whole membership will be expected to follow after.
Dr Null is right to be worried as to the proposal and to where this will lead!
(Ashley Null’s booklet is THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES AND REFORMATION ANGLICANISM, Biblical Authority Defined and Applied, 2005, and is published by the Uganda Christian University, Mukono, Uganda.)
petertoon@msn.com Septuagesima Sunday 2006 February 26, 2006
However, there are voices to be heard and words to be read from the left and the right that raise important questions about what this Report actually assumed and commended on a variety of themes.
Dr Ashley Null, author of a book on Cranmer (Oxford UP 2000) and Canon Theologian of the ECUSA diocese of Western Kansas, has expressed serious concern as to the view stated by the Report as to how the people of God are to relate to the Bible from now on in the Anglican Communion. His concern arises because he knows, as well as any other person in the whole world, the classic position of the Holy Scriptures in the Anglican Way -- as stated by Archbishop Cranmer in the Preface to the Great Bible, in his Homily on the reading of Scripture in the First Book of Homilies, and in Articles VI, VII, & XX of The Thirty-Nine Articles.
Dr Null understands that what the Commission is recommending in its Report , in order to maintain the Communion as a diversity in unity is the equivalent in Anglican terms of an authoritative teaching magisterium (the Archbishop of Canterbury and a panel of advisers, in close liaison with the Primates). Bound together by a covenant, the provinces will be also bound to accept in major matters of controversy the final ruling of the magisterium.
Let us be clear. The Anglican Communion is a very long way from agreeing to either a mutually binding covenant or to a teaching magisterium. However, what the ongoing controversy and crisis over “same-sex stuff” has brought out into the open is the variety of ways in which the Bible is interpreted by Anglicans. And different approaches to the Bible lead to the discovery therein of different, even opposing doctrines. If the Anglican Communion is to survive as a diversity in unity and unity in diversity it will certainly need to agree at least on which forms of biblical interpretation are either acceptable or not.
The classic, traditional position, first stated with great power and clarity by Cranmer is that the basic message from God given in the Bible, One Canon with Two Testaments, is clear to all. This message is that everlasting salvation is given by God through and in Jesus Christ, and with it a basic form of doctrine and morality is presented. So what is essential to salvation is clearly there in the Bible, understood in its plain sense and in the light of the entire canon by the rule of non-contradiction. No teaching magisterium is needed to do this job for the baptized people of God; and further the national Church, and the even the Church international meeting in Council, does not have the authority to require of any local church or individual Christian for eternal salvation anything that is not clearly taught in Scripture or may not be deduced from the clear teaching of Scripture.
We are now at a point in Anglican history where some of the sophisticated teachers of Biblical Studies in colleges and seminaries, together with some bishops, are claiming that the received position of the clarity of Scripture on basic faith and morality is wholly wrong, and that the Bible only opens up its unique message with the use of special tools of interpretation, as sued by scholars. One may see these tools being used in To Set Our Hope on Christ, the book produced for the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA by a team of scholars, and then presented to the Anglican Communion as a way of justifying the new ECUSA doctrine with respect to the holiness of same-sex unions. (see my response in Same-Sex Affection, A Response to Presiding Bishop Griswold - 1-800-727-1928 or www.anglicanmarketplace.com )
What these “western” enlightened Anglicans are saying is that the Cranmerian approach to the Bible (a) is totally outdated and will not work in post-modern society, (b) was taken by missionaries to Africa and is the cause of the “fundamentalism” of African bishops and Primates, and (c) must be replaced by an approach to the Bible that is consonant with modern sensibilities and knowledge.
To be specific -- the Cranmerian approach states that sexual morality is clear in the Bible and is given in the form of commandments and exhortations and by these we know the will of God for today for sexual relations.
In contrast, one approach amongst theologians from mainline churches suggests that the key to understand what the Bible really teaches is by identifying with Jesus as he is presented at his most different from others in the Gospels – that is as the friend of the outcasts of society, as the Saviour of the excluded, as the healer of those rejected by their families, and so on. This true and vital Jesus stands against sexism and patriarchy and discrimination and homophobia and in his embrace of all deserving souls he blesses loving, faithful, covenanted same-sex partnerships. So here the Jesus of parts of the Gospels is the internal critic of much of the content, doctrine and morality of the Bible! And this all-inclusive Jesus commends and defends what the traditional Jesus says is sin and immorality.
Thus in the confusing array of doctrines and forms of morality arrived at by new and different methods in interpretation there is certainly diversity but no unity. So the Report suggests that to keep everyone together there is needed a central authority which after discernment can make a judgment and say “This is the Anglican Way” and then all the Provinces with their whole membership will be expected to follow after.
Dr Null is right to be worried as to the proposal and to where this will lead!
(Ashley Null’s booklet is THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES AND REFORMATION ANGLICANISM, Biblical Authority Defined and Applied, 2005, and is published by the Uganda Christian University, Mukono, Uganda.)
petertoon@msn.com Septuagesima Sunday 2006 February 26, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
Inseparable Triplets
Reflections upon the birth of three novelties in the ECUSA in the 1970s
I propose that three innovations made by the mainline Churches, especially the Episcopal Church, of the USA are like three triplets – that is they not only belong together but they are intimately related and have proceeded from the same womb and parents.
All belong in origin to the radical period that began in the late 1960s and continued into the 1970s. They are:
the new doctrine of matrimony that was adopted by the ECUSA in its 1973 Marriage Canon and its Marriage Service in the Prayer Book approved by the 1976 & 1979 General Conventions;
the new doctrine of ordained Ministry adopted by the ECUSA also in the 1970s, especially by the 1976 General Convention; and
the acceptance of same-sex relations as normal for some people, and thus open to being blessed by God, with the persons, so involved, as suitable candidates for offices in the church, including ordination to all orders of the Ministry. This has been discussed and debated persistently in the ECUSA since the 1970s, and is generally accepted in 2006.
In each of these innovations a similar logic is used with reference to the Christian Tradition (especially the use of the Bible) and to the contemporary world in order to justify the innovation. Let me try to illustrate this way of justification.
Matrimony. Here it is recognized and claimed,
that Jesus made some very strong statements about marriage as the union of a man and woman as one flesh for life (until one partner dies), where by “one flesh” is meant both the duty and privilege of procreation and a life of intimacy and friendship;
that what Jesus taught belongs to a very different society than the modern one, where babies and people live longer, where women go out to work outside the home, and where because of the availability of artificial birth control, married women need not be pregnant continuously, in fact not at all if they so wish;
that the companionship, friendship and sexual fulfillment available in a good, modern marriage is just as important as procreation and are proper ends in themselves;
therefore, marriage should not now have the duty of procreation built into it, but procreation and raising children should be optional, for those who feel called.
Further, in a society and culture where people live longer, where their lives are under all kinds of pressures, marriage for life should be an ideal but not a rule, and thus divorce should be available and acceptable, followed in due time by re-marriage if this is what seems good for those involved. And the Church should recognize this modern reality of widespread divorce and seek to help those involved pastorally, including preparing them for second and even third marriages.
So it is that the Church comes to accept a change in the purpose of marriage and also of the permanence of marriage – see the 1973 Canon and the Preface to the Marriage service in the Prayer Book of 1979.
Women’s Ordination. Here it is recognized and claimed:
That for Jesus and the apostles generous and gracious patriarchy was God’s plan for the rule of home and church;
That often patriarchy (because of the sinfulness of man) in home and church has been as often harsh and despotic as generous;
That only men were ordained to the Threefold Ministry from the first to the twentieth century;
That, on the basis of modern views of human rights and dignity, women have as much right to be Ministers as men;
That it was certainly pressure from the feminist movement for equal right in employment for women that moved the ECUSA to begin to favor women’s ordination;
That theological justification may be offered for this innovation by appealing to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the New Testament and especially to the equal status of all believers, male and female, conferred by Baptism;
That further justification may be offered (e.g., as it was by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Pope) on the basis that, since patriarchy has effectively disappeared in the West, both female and male Ministers are required now in Church and for society to show that Jesus the Savior and High Priest is for all persons, and not only for males. A male-only Ministry sends out the message of salvation and acceptance with God only for men.
So it is that in the ECUSA the ordaining and deployment of women as clergy began in 1976 and is in 2006 very common and widely accepted as normal, right and good.
Same-sex affection and unions: Here it is recognized and claimed,
That the Old and the New Testament clearly condemn Lesbianism, sodomy and pederasty, along with all forms of adultery and fornication;
That what is being practiced and developed today by Christians in the West and in ECUSA is something of which there were only hints in past times and cultures; this is the important phenomenon of covenanted, faithful, same-sex unions; in these partnerships it is as though the couple are married for, like so many “heterosexual” couples they find sexual fulfillment and friendship through and with each other; and further they also may have a child (by artificial insemination or by adoption;
That the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about this new form of same-sex relations for its writers did not know it; thus it is nowhere condemned in the Bible or in the Christian tradition; it is for the modern Church to make a decision concerning it;
That God speaking through the professional experience of psychiatrists and the psychological experience of those involved in same-sex partnerships reveals that this form of union can be a means of holiness before God and for the true good of each partner;
So it is that in 2006 many ECUSA dioceses bless the unions of such persons, ordain to the Ministry persons involved in these unions, and one diocese has even consecrated as a Bishop a man in such a union.
Summary: It is difficult to imagine how the acceptance of same-sex unions by the ECUSA could have occurred had not the other two babes (new form of marriage and women’s ordination) been born first. A way was created in both these innovations of interpreting the Bible in such a way as to deny its common sense, literal meaning and this served to give added strength and acceptability to the same-sex unions’ cause.
Let us be honest. There is little doubt but that patriarchy is portrayed in the Bible as God’s plan for the family and the Church; there is little doubt but that marriage is presented in the Bible as for unity of hearts and procreation from the one-flesh union; and there is no doubt but that same-sex unions, even the modern kind, are totally against the design and purpose of God in creating man, as male and female persons.
It would appear that the modern, liberal, progressive Church has become very adapt and successful at making the clear teaching of Jesus and his apostles to be unclear and confused, and thus able to commend “as prophetic” and “radically Christian” today that which is so clearly contrary to the teaching of Jesus and his apostles.
Perhaps this confusion in relation to the Bible also goes some way to explain how also in the 1970s, the ECUSA could call what was so obviously a Book of Varied Services by the name of the ancient and hallowed “Book of Common Prayer” (1549 first edition; 1928, last authentic USA edition). Those who made this decision had lost the ability it would seem to make a simple judgment as to what kind of book was being prepared, approved and published.
It would seem that the only way for the reforming remnant in ECUSA (e.g. The Network and AAC and FinFNA) to deal with the last of the triplets called “Same-Sex Partnerships” is first to deal with the two other triplets born just before this one. For whilst they are so dominant on the stage, it will be impossible to deal effectively with number three and keep it also off the stage!.
(for those who wish to pursue this theme further, may I invite you to read my latest 64 page booklet, EPISCOPAL INNOVATIONS which is available on several websites [ e.g., www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 & www.challengeonline.org ] and will be available as a printed booklet around March 3rd from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from 1 800 – PBS- 1928)
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon petertoon@msn.com February 20, 2006
I propose that three innovations made by the mainline Churches, especially the Episcopal Church, of the USA are like three triplets – that is they not only belong together but they are intimately related and have proceeded from the same womb and parents.
All belong in origin to the radical period that began in the late 1960s and continued into the 1970s. They are:
the new doctrine of matrimony that was adopted by the ECUSA in its 1973 Marriage Canon and its Marriage Service in the Prayer Book approved by the 1976 & 1979 General Conventions;
the new doctrine of ordained Ministry adopted by the ECUSA also in the 1970s, especially by the 1976 General Convention; and
the acceptance of same-sex relations as normal for some people, and thus open to being blessed by God, with the persons, so involved, as suitable candidates for offices in the church, including ordination to all orders of the Ministry. This has been discussed and debated persistently in the ECUSA since the 1970s, and is generally accepted in 2006.
In each of these innovations a similar logic is used with reference to the Christian Tradition (especially the use of the Bible) and to the contemporary world in order to justify the innovation. Let me try to illustrate this way of justification.
Matrimony. Here it is recognized and claimed,
that Jesus made some very strong statements about marriage as the union of a man and woman as one flesh for life (until one partner dies), where by “one flesh” is meant both the duty and privilege of procreation and a life of intimacy and friendship;
that what Jesus taught belongs to a very different society than the modern one, where babies and people live longer, where women go out to work outside the home, and where because of the availability of artificial birth control, married women need not be pregnant continuously, in fact not at all if they so wish;
that the companionship, friendship and sexual fulfillment available in a good, modern marriage is just as important as procreation and are proper ends in themselves;
therefore, marriage should not now have the duty of procreation built into it, but procreation and raising children should be optional, for those who feel called.
Further, in a society and culture where people live longer, where their lives are under all kinds of pressures, marriage for life should be an ideal but not a rule, and thus divorce should be available and acceptable, followed in due time by re-marriage if this is what seems good for those involved. And the Church should recognize this modern reality of widespread divorce and seek to help those involved pastorally, including preparing them for second and even third marriages.
So it is that the Church comes to accept a change in the purpose of marriage and also of the permanence of marriage – see the 1973 Canon and the Preface to the Marriage service in the Prayer Book of 1979.
Women’s Ordination. Here it is recognized and claimed:
That for Jesus and the apostles generous and gracious patriarchy was God’s plan for the rule of home and church;
That often patriarchy (because of the sinfulness of man) in home and church has been as often harsh and despotic as generous;
That only men were ordained to the Threefold Ministry from the first to the twentieth century;
That, on the basis of modern views of human rights and dignity, women have as much right to be Ministers as men;
That it was certainly pressure from the feminist movement for equal right in employment for women that moved the ECUSA to begin to favor women’s ordination;
That theological justification may be offered for this innovation by appealing to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the New Testament and especially to the equal status of all believers, male and female, conferred by Baptism;
That further justification may be offered (e.g., as it was by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Pope) on the basis that, since patriarchy has effectively disappeared in the West, both female and male Ministers are required now in Church and for society to show that Jesus the Savior and High Priest is for all persons, and not only for males. A male-only Ministry sends out the message of salvation and acceptance with God only for men.
So it is that in the ECUSA the ordaining and deployment of women as clergy began in 1976 and is in 2006 very common and widely accepted as normal, right and good.
Same-sex affection and unions: Here it is recognized and claimed,
That the Old and the New Testament clearly condemn Lesbianism, sodomy and pederasty, along with all forms of adultery and fornication;
That what is being practiced and developed today by Christians in the West and in ECUSA is something of which there were only hints in past times and cultures; this is the important phenomenon of covenanted, faithful, same-sex unions; in these partnerships it is as though the couple are married for, like so many “heterosexual” couples they find sexual fulfillment and friendship through and with each other; and further they also may have a child (by artificial insemination or by adoption;
That the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about this new form of same-sex relations for its writers did not know it; thus it is nowhere condemned in the Bible or in the Christian tradition; it is for the modern Church to make a decision concerning it;
That God speaking through the professional experience of psychiatrists and the psychological experience of those involved in same-sex partnerships reveals that this form of union can be a means of holiness before God and for the true good of each partner;
So it is that in 2006 many ECUSA dioceses bless the unions of such persons, ordain to the Ministry persons involved in these unions, and one diocese has even consecrated as a Bishop a man in such a union.
Summary: It is difficult to imagine how the acceptance of same-sex unions by the ECUSA could have occurred had not the other two babes (new form of marriage and women’s ordination) been born first. A way was created in both these innovations of interpreting the Bible in such a way as to deny its common sense, literal meaning and this served to give added strength and acceptability to the same-sex unions’ cause.
Let us be honest. There is little doubt but that patriarchy is portrayed in the Bible as God’s plan for the family and the Church; there is little doubt but that marriage is presented in the Bible as for unity of hearts and procreation from the one-flesh union; and there is no doubt but that same-sex unions, even the modern kind, are totally against the design and purpose of God in creating man, as male and female persons.
It would appear that the modern, liberal, progressive Church has become very adapt and successful at making the clear teaching of Jesus and his apostles to be unclear and confused, and thus able to commend “as prophetic” and “radically Christian” today that which is so clearly contrary to the teaching of Jesus and his apostles.
Perhaps this confusion in relation to the Bible also goes some way to explain how also in the 1970s, the ECUSA could call what was so obviously a Book of Varied Services by the name of the ancient and hallowed “Book of Common Prayer” (1549 first edition; 1928, last authentic USA edition). Those who made this decision had lost the ability it would seem to make a simple judgment as to what kind of book was being prepared, approved and published.
It would seem that the only way for the reforming remnant in ECUSA (e.g. The Network and AAC and FinFNA) to deal with the last of the triplets called “Same-Sex Partnerships” is first to deal with the two other triplets born just before this one. For whilst they are so dominant on the stage, it will be impossible to deal effectively with number three and keep it also off the stage!.
(for those who wish to pursue this theme further, may I invite you to read my latest 64 page booklet, EPISCOPAL INNOVATIONS which is available on several websites [ e.g., www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 & www.challengeonline.org ] and will be available as a printed booklet around March 3rd from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from 1 800 – PBS- 1928)
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon petertoon@msn.com February 20, 2006
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Gene, we pray for you: Let us pray lovingly and fervently for Gene Robinson.
I am worried that too many of us seem to be treating the entry of Bishop Gene Robinson into medical care for alcoholism as an opportunity for making political advance for “our cause” – i.e., for “the orthodox” against “the revisionists.” It seems that our model for dealing with those we oppose in the ECUSA is too often the way that the activists and publicists for one political party use the failures, errors and misfortunes of members of the other party for political gain. We have seen plenty of this very recently concerning the accidental shooting in Texas of a friend by the Vice-President.
Surely, as Christians, it is not for us to gloat over the tragedy of what has happened to Gene Robinson. We all know how disastrous can be the effects of having the disease of alcoholism and in his case these are surely intensified by his commitment to the life of same-sex relations.
Rather, it is for us to recognize that each and all of us are weak creatures when it comes to resisting temptation and we are sinful creatures when it comes to gaining salvation. We are all greatly in need of the mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the presence and power of His Spirit within us, to prevent us from falling and to help us live victoriously in faith, hope and charity. We are not in a position to judge anyone who has fallen! God in Christ is the Judge.
Should we not be praying that this painful episode in Gene’s life will be the occasion for the Spirit of the Lord Jesus to minister to him (and his partner), so that he is given the will to be and do what is necessary, in order to be raised from his descent into disease and depression into a life of total consecration to our Lord Jesus Christ in holiness and sanctification, as he is filled with the Spirit of the same Lord Jesus Christ.
We cannot believe that God has written him off completely and judged him finally, ahead of the Last Judgment at the end of the age. The blood of the Lord Jesus was shed for him and the pastoral love of the same exalted Jesus reaches out to him now. Let us pray that the Father’s will for this bruised and sick sheep will be done in Gene, and that he will become another of the long line of persons, who are being saved, healed and sanctified by the rich mercy and gracious love of God the Holy Trinity, so that he lives by faith in faithfulness to our Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of the sheep, relying day by day on the healing of the same Jesus, the Physician of soul and body.
Lord have mercy upon all of us, and especially Gene.
petertoon@msn.com February 18, 2006
Surely, as Christians, it is not for us to gloat over the tragedy of what has happened to Gene Robinson. We all know how disastrous can be the effects of having the disease of alcoholism and in his case these are surely intensified by his commitment to the life of same-sex relations.
Rather, it is for us to recognize that each and all of us are weak creatures when it comes to resisting temptation and we are sinful creatures when it comes to gaining salvation. We are all greatly in need of the mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the presence and power of His Spirit within us, to prevent us from falling and to help us live victoriously in faith, hope and charity. We are not in a position to judge anyone who has fallen! God in Christ is the Judge.
Should we not be praying that this painful episode in Gene’s life will be the occasion for the Spirit of the Lord Jesus to minister to him (and his partner), so that he is given the will to be and do what is necessary, in order to be raised from his descent into disease and depression into a life of total consecration to our Lord Jesus Christ in holiness and sanctification, as he is filled with the Spirit of the same Lord Jesus Christ.
We cannot believe that God has written him off completely and judged him finally, ahead of the Last Judgment at the end of the age. The blood of the Lord Jesus was shed for him and the pastoral love of the same exalted Jesus reaches out to him now. Let us pray that the Father’s will for this bruised and sick sheep will be done in Gene, and that he will become another of the long line of persons, who are being saved, healed and sanctified by the rich mercy and gracious love of God the Holy Trinity, so that he lives by faith in faithfulness to our Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of the sheep, relying day by day on the healing of the same Jesus, the Physician of soul and body.
Lord have mercy upon all of us, and especially Gene.
petertoon@msn.com February 18, 2006
Reforming ECUSA by creating a covenanted, godly remnant
discernment and fervent prayer by Episcopalians
I cannot escape the thought that the Lord of the Church is saying quietly and tenderly to those Episcopalians who have ears to hear:
“As a starter, find Me one, just one, bishop in the Episcopal Church who is so committed to Me and my mission, that he is prepared as a modern Athanasius to stand for Me and my truth, and take whatever persecution and dishonor comes his way in order to lead My people into the full experience of My grace and truth.”
I realize and am a little embarrassed to state that this word stands in such sharp contrast to the apparent, normal stance of most “orthodox” ECUSA bishops -- which is, or appears to be, to take a minimal stand for the full truth of the Anglican Way, and then wait upon the turn of events, hoping that somehow they will turn in their favor in such a way as to make it unnecessary for them to do anything out of the normal to keep things near the status quo of yesterday.
In various essays I have pointed out that that normal way of reformation in the mainline American Churches since the late 19th century has been by the “orthodox” departing, and doing so in order to create a new church wherein their cherished principles can be realized. In other words, schism is the name of the game, and this has energized the American supermarket of religions and keeps increasing the content of the yellow pages of the Telephone Directory.
Is it possible that the Episcopal Church could – against all the odds – provide an example contrary to the trend in the mainline and see genuine reform and renewal from within?
The answer seems to be Yes, if, and only if, the senior pastors of this dis-ordered flock (a) begin to act as if they were really and truly senior pastors of the flock, and (b) focus on the model provided in the Old and New Testament of the righteous remnant. How often are we encouraged to read about the remnant as represented by Hosea, Jeremiah, the family of John the Baptist, Simeon and Anna, with the earthly parents of Jesus of Nazareth. They did not the people Israel to form a sect but suffered and witnessed within this people, and their witness inspires us thousands of years later.
Right now, it is claimed by the CAN and AAC that there are ten diocesan bishops and ten dioceses who claim to be “orthodox” and opposed to the “revisionism” which characterizes the House of Bishops and the General Convention. We focus on bishops for the obvious reason that the polity of the Episcopal Way is in part hierarchical in that Bishops alone and together have much authority and are the office-holders who are specifically called to lead – to lead, however, as “father-in-God” and “shepherd of the flock,” not as C E O or Manager or Chief Liturgical Officer.
Therefore, because of their position as successors of the apostles and head of the hierarchy of ministry, it would appear that the only way that there can be genuine reform of the Episcopal Church at this time is by these ten bishops (or some of them) covenanting together, after due prayer, fasting and receiving godly advice from abroad. In the solemn covenant they could/would, for example,
I cannot escape the thought that the Lord of the Church is saying quietly and tenderly to those Episcopalians who have ears to hear:
“As a starter, find Me one, just one, bishop in the Episcopal Church who is so committed to Me and my mission, that he is prepared as a modern Athanasius to stand for Me and my truth, and take whatever persecution and dishonor comes his way in order to lead My people into the full experience of My grace and truth.”
I realize and am a little embarrassed to state that this word stands in such sharp contrast to the apparent, normal stance of most “orthodox” ECUSA bishops -- which is, or appears to be, to take a minimal stand for the full truth of the Anglican Way, and then wait upon the turn of events, hoping that somehow they will turn in their favor in such a way as to make it unnecessary for them to do anything out of the normal to keep things near the status quo of yesterday.
In various essays I have pointed out that that normal way of reformation in the mainline American Churches since the late 19th century has been by the “orthodox” departing, and doing so in order to create a new church wherein their cherished principles can be realized. In other words, schism is the name of the game, and this has energized the American supermarket of religions and keeps increasing the content of the yellow pages of the Telephone Directory.
Is it possible that the Episcopal Church could – against all the odds – provide an example contrary to the trend in the mainline and see genuine reform and renewal from within?
The answer seems to be Yes, if, and only if, the senior pastors of this dis-ordered flock (a) begin to act as if they were really and truly senior pastors of the flock, and (b) focus on the model provided in the Old and New Testament of the righteous remnant. How often are we encouraged to read about the remnant as represented by Hosea, Jeremiah, the family of John the Baptist, Simeon and Anna, with the earthly parents of Jesus of Nazareth. They did not the people Israel to form a sect but suffered and witnessed within this people, and their witness inspires us thousands of years later.
Right now, it is claimed by the CAN and AAC that there are ten diocesan bishops and ten dioceses who claim to be “orthodox” and opposed to the “revisionism” which characterizes the House of Bishops and the General Convention. We focus on bishops for the obvious reason that the polity of the Episcopal Way is in part hierarchical in that Bishops alone and together have much authority and are the office-holders who are specifically called to lead – to lead, however, as “father-in-God” and “shepherd of the flock,” not as C E O or Manager or Chief Liturgical Officer.
Therefore, because of their position as successors of the apostles and head of the hierarchy of ministry, it would appear that the only way that there can be genuine reform of the Episcopal Church at this time is by these ten bishops (or some of them) covenanting together, after due prayer, fasting and receiving godly advice from abroad. In the solemn covenant they could/would, for example,
- bind themselves before God to stand together and act together, really and truly not partially and according to feeling;
- declare themselves out of Eucharistic communion with all ECUSA bishops who stand even minimally for the progressive liberal agenda of the General Convention;
- form a federation of dioceses, which (a) recovered the historic Formularies that were ditched in 1979, making the BCP 1928 as chief formulary and treating the 1979 Prayer Book as a Book of Varied and Alternative Services, and (b) declared null and void for the Federation all canons and resolutions of General Convention since 1970 which changed the received Anglican doctrines of baptism, confirmation, marriage, women’s ordination and same-sex relations;
- attend the regular ECUSA meetings as a unit and stand together graciously yet firmly for righteousness and against heresy and immorality;
- gather to them the seventy or so congregations that have left the ECUSA recently and make them real parts of their dioceses;
- be instantly prepared to cross diocesan boundaries to minister to isolated parishes desirous to flee the ECUSA heresies and in need of pastoral care,
- seek the blessing and support of Anglican provinces abroad.
As and when the Bishops do this, faithful clergy and laity will surely come to their side in loving and prayerful support. Further, the Media will take note and the faithful in the other mainline denominations will be encouraged.
Of course, canon lawyers will say that it is impossible; of course, bishops who are not used to being godly leaders of the flock will at first regard all this as just too much even to contemplate; and, of course, it will be ridiculed and opposed by the present leadership of the Church. And the chorus will even arise from within the “orthodox camp”: “We must wait to see what the next General Convention does and then also to see who is invited to the Lambeth Conference and what the Primates have to say….and so on and so on.” But, let us recall, all this kind of thing was said by the Episcopal Synod in the early 90s as it played a waiting game, and, we have to ask, where is that organization and movement now and specifically where are its bishops?
The possibility of the remnant acting NOW in the wisdom and strength of Christ is one real possible scenario of which one may perhaps dare to think and then say that “with God all things are possible.” If this movement of reform is approached from the remnant’s side in fear and trembling before the Lord of hosts and with humility before the God of all grace and mercy, who can predict what will happen?
It would appear (based on previous history in the mainline Churches of the USA) that if this kind of godly action is not taken now by the Bishops then all the fine rhetoric, expensive plans and large promises of the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council, with other bodies, will lead only to great frustration for thousand of laity and clergy and also the increase of the Alphabet of Affiliations outside the Episcopal Church (no longer 70 but hundreds). More and more parishes will leave the ECUSA looking for a godly bishop and they will eventually find him in one of the thirty or so provinces overseas. And it will become increasingly difficult to keep these schisms together and these relations over thousands of miles meaningful and sweet, and, indeed, very difficult to speak optimistically for “orthodoxy” at all within or without the ECUSA. The Anglican Way, although now deeply divided and pulling in many directions, will become even more centrifugally determined.
Anglican Polity is neither congregationalism nor Presbyterianism. It is the people of God in dioceses ruled and pastored by their Pastors (Bishops) assisted by presbyters, deacons and lay ministers. Note that the shepherds whom Jesus knew (read Psalm 23) went ahead of their flock to make ready the way for them and to lead them. And note that the northern European shepherd goes behind the flock using his sheepdog to keep the sheep under control. The shepherds Jesus had in mind as his apostles and bishops were those who led from the front, staff in hand, and did not look to others to do their jobs for them! They were prepared to risk all for the one lost sheep! Today we tend to choose as bishops men who become bureaucrats, managers, counselors, CEO’s, and facilitators, and last of all, if at all, a father-in God, a shepherd. But God our Father, we humbly believe, can make them into real Shepherds! Although he may choose to do so through our sacrificial and fervent prayer and devotion this Lent.
So, I believe, the Lord of the Church and the Great Shepherd of the sheep looks for an under-shepherd in the ECUSA who will truly display a shepherd’s mind, heart and will; and as such will inspire others to become and do the same so that the remnant can effectively be saved and become the catalyst for new beginnings for the Anglican Way in the ECUSA and its offshoots.
(for a portrayal of the serious sickness of the ECUSA, a sickness which affects all its bishops, priests and membership, and sickness to be delivered from, read my Episcopal Innovations 1960-2004 at www.virtueonline.org in the theology section; or at www.challengeonline.org or at www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 It will be released as a booklet of 64 pages by the Prayer Book Society on March 3, 2006)
February 17, 2006 petertoon@msn.com
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Diagnosis and cure in the ECUSA: No accurate Diagnosis – No lasting Cure
Reflections on the sickness of the Episcopal Church
Amongst Anglican conservatives there is universal agreement that the Episcopal Church of the US as a corporate body is sick – some would say very sick. In contrast, the leadership of this Church proclaims that it is just the opposite, it is filled with prophetic zeal and has both a message and an agenda that are relevant and acceptable to a post-modern society. Thus it is not sick but rather committed to curing the sicknesses of alienation and discrimination in society to make an inclusive community.
One salient fact for all to bear in mind is that in the late 1960s around three million people attended Episcopal Churches on Sundays while in 2006 the number is down to around one million. The actual membership of the Church has more than halved in forty years whilst the general population has increased by at least a third. So there is a real problem within the Episcopal Church!
Back in the early 1990s I heard several explanations for the demise of the Episcopal Church both in membership numbers and in the walking away by its leadership from Anglican orthodoxy into a progressive liberalism.
The Anglo-Catholics placed much emphasis upon the change in the doctrine of the ordained Ministry, with the introduction of women priests in 1976 and women bishops a decade later. In general, they accepted women as deacons, but saw the placing of women into the ministerial priesthood as a major innovation and a rejection of catholic orthodoxy.
The Evangelicals saw a serious departure by the leadership from the Lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture for faith and conduct into theological relativism and the embrace of a social gospel. However, few of them had any problem with the ordaining of women, which they accepted as fine, as long as the women in question were creedally orthodox, and evangelical in commitment.
The Charismatics saw a serious lack of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the corporate life of the churches and in the lives of members. They called for renewal, inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit and the use of his gifts and graces.
Members of the Prayer Book Society of the Episcopal Church proclaimed that the major ills of the Church were caused by the rejection of the historic Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1928, itself a successor of the classic 1662 edition) in 1979 and its replacement by a new kind of Prayer Book, a book of varied services and erroneous doctrines.
From a few, who tended to speak quietly, came the suggestion that the originating problem of the Church was the revision of the Canon on Marriage of 1973 and the acceptance in all but name by the ECUSA of the divorce culture, which had been intensified by the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
Also from a few came the message that the real problem with the ECUSA was that the House of Bishop as a body and diocesan Bishops as individual pastors were failing truly to lead the flock. They had ceased to function as father-in God and as pastor, evangelist and missioner and had become bureaucrats, managers and counselors. And the clergy were following these trends. (The present AMiA may be traced in part to this conviction.)
In the early 1990s most of the Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals and Charismatics, along with those who saw a leadership problem, were more than happy to use the new Prayer Book of 1979. For the Anglo-Catholics it gave them certain liturgical possibilities for which they had campaigned (e.g., the Gloria in excelsis at the beginning of the “Mass” not the end, and a rite for private confession to a priest). For the Evangelicals and Charismatics, it gave them services in modern English that were short and simple and could be used in mission and evangelism. None of these groups seems to have carefully analyzed the Book to see whether it was identical in basic doctrine with the historic and classic Prayer Book tradition of the Anglican Way. Most were taken in by the propaganda for it from the Liturgical Commission via seminary professors and clergy conferences. (This propaganda is now basically rejected by current liturgical scholarship – see The Oxford History of Christian Worship, OUP 2005, chapters 1-2.)
In the twenty-first century, most conservative groups (but not the Prayer Book Society) have united in claiming that the acceptance by the ECUSA of the rights of Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay persons to full membership, their holding of church offices and their partnerships being blessed, is such a serious innovation and error that it overshadows all the previous errors of this Church. Further, and importantly, the impression given by the Anglican Communion Network (which represents a good proportion of the conservative movement in the ECUSA) and its friends oversees is that if the Episcopal Church at the its June 2006 General Convention accepts that it erred and went too far in its embrace of the LesBiGay agenda and takes a few steps backwards (or does a kind of U-turn) and returns to say where it was in 2000 or 1997, then it will be restored to being an “orthodox” province of the Anglican Communion – or at least a province wherein the “orthodox” can dwell securely.
I personally reject this analysis and position. Why? Because, in medical care, physical or spiritual, where the diagnosis is false or incomplete then there can be no true and lasting cure. My belief is that conservative Episcopalians have not been given a full, candid and proper diagnosis of the sickness of the ECUSA. Rather, they have been given partial diagnoses which being incomplete are probably dangerous!
In a 64 page large booklet, EPISCOPAL INNOVATIONS 1960-2004, Theological and Historical Reflections on the Episcopal Church, I suggest that ALL the doctrinal, liturgical and moral innovations in ECUSA since the 1960s are inter-related and inter-connected and that they have a common origin. What this common origin is was first clearly suggested in seminars by Professor Charles Caldwell when he taught at Nashotah House in the late 1980s and early 1990s (where he was often a voice crying in the wilderness). After much conversation with him in the 1990s, I have developed and clarified the thesis which he first articulated there, -- a thesis which he created from his reading of Scripture with the help of the Greek Fathers of the Church, and in particular, of the Apostolic Constitutions from the fourth century (but containing much third century material).
Put simply, there has been a sustained rejection of divine order by ECUSA as that is given by God the Holy Trinity in the created order and in the order of the new covenant. Each and every major innovation from the marriage canon of 1973 to the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2004 is a rejection of divine order. Further, there is a lineal relation also between the major innovations for certain had to occur before others could occur – e.g., the Church had to make Christian marriage an option, rather than a requirement and doctrine, before the Church was ready to see the “justice” of blessing same-sex partnerships and ordaining persons in such; and the Church had to reject the Reformed Catholicism of her inherited Formularies in order to open the door to radical, progressive liberalism with a liturgical face
My view is that simply asking the ECUSA to return to its position of the 1997 or 2003 General Convention is like making an incomplete diagnosis and thereby giving the patient the wrong medicine, medicine which does not cure the sickness but makes it worse. The ECUSA needs surgery and medicine which will deal truly with its real and death-threatening sickness.
Episcopal Innovations 1960-2004 will be published by the Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society on March 2nd 2006 and be available at www.anglicanmarketplace.com soon after that date. Individual copies including postage and packing are $7.50 each and may be ordered by sending a check to PBS, P. O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220. Multiple copies (5 or more) are $5.00 each, postage included.
The text may be accessed now at the following websites -- www.virtueonline.org in the theology section; www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 & www.challengeonline.org
I do hope that you will both pay a visit and also order copies to distribute amongst concerned persons to read and ponder. Unless we get the diagnosis right, there can be no real cure. My essay is meant to assist in diagnosis.
Septuagesima 2006 The Revd Dr Peter Toon drpetertoon@yahoo.com
Amongst Anglican conservatives there is universal agreement that the Episcopal Church of the US as a corporate body is sick – some would say very sick. In contrast, the leadership of this Church proclaims that it is just the opposite, it is filled with prophetic zeal and has both a message and an agenda that are relevant and acceptable to a post-modern society. Thus it is not sick but rather committed to curing the sicknesses of alienation and discrimination in society to make an inclusive community.
One salient fact for all to bear in mind is that in the late 1960s around three million people attended Episcopal Churches on Sundays while in 2006 the number is down to around one million. The actual membership of the Church has more than halved in forty years whilst the general population has increased by at least a third. So there is a real problem within the Episcopal Church!
Back in the early 1990s I heard several explanations for the demise of the Episcopal Church both in membership numbers and in the walking away by its leadership from Anglican orthodoxy into a progressive liberalism.
The Anglo-Catholics placed much emphasis upon the change in the doctrine of the ordained Ministry, with the introduction of women priests in 1976 and women bishops a decade later. In general, they accepted women as deacons, but saw the placing of women into the ministerial priesthood as a major innovation and a rejection of catholic orthodoxy.
The Evangelicals saw a serious departure by the leadership from the Lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture for faith and conduct into theological relativism and the embrace of a social gospel. However, few of them had any problem with the ordaining of women, which they accepted as fine, as long as the women in question were creedally orthodox, and evangelical in commitment.
The Charismatics saw a serious lack of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the corporate life of the churches and in the lives of members. They called for renewal, inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit and the use of his gifts and graces.
Members of the Prayer Book Society of the Episcopal Church proclaimed that the major ills of the Church were caused by the rejection of the historic Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1928, itself a successor of the classic 1662 edition) in 1979 and its replacement by a new kind of Prayer Book, a book of varied services and erroneous doctrines.
From a few, who tended to speak quietly, came the suggestion that the originating problem of the Church was the revision of the Canon on Marriage of 1973 and the acceptance in all but name by the ECUSA of the divorce culture, which had been intensified by the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
Also from a few came the message that the real problem with the ECUSA was that the House of Bishop as a body and diocesan Bishops as individual pastors were failing truly to lead the flock. They had ceased to function as father-in God and as pastor, evangelist and missioner and had become bureaucrats, managers and counselors. And the clergy were following these trends. (The present AMiA may be traced in part to this conviction.)
In the early 1990s most of the Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals and Charismatics, along with those who saw a leadership problem, were more than happy to use the new Prayer Book of 1979. For the Anglo-Catholics it gave them certain liturgical possibilities for which they had campaigned (e.g., the Gloria in excelsis at the beginning of the “Mass” not the end, and a rite for private confession to a priest). For the Evangelicals and Charismatics, it gave them services in modern English that were short and simple and could be used in mission and evangelism. None of these groups seems to have carefully analyzed the Book to see whether it was identical in basic doctrine with the historic and classic Prayer Book tradition of the Anglican Way. Most were taken in by the propaganda for it from the Liturgical Commission via seminary professors and clergy conferences. (This propaganda is now basically rejected by current liturgical scholarship – see The Oxford History of Christian Worship, OUP 2005, chapters 1-2.)
In the twenty-first century, most conservative groups (but not the Prayer Book Society) have united in claiming that the acceptance by the ECUSA of the rights of Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay persons to full membership, their holding of church offices and their partnerships being blessed, is such a serious innovation and error that it overshadows all the previous errors of this Church. Further, and importantly, the impression given by the Anglican Communion Network (which represents a good proportion of the conservative movement in the ECUSA) and its friends oversees is that if the Episcopal Church at the its June 2006 General Convention accepts that it erred and went too far in its embrace of the LesBiGay agenda and takes a few steps backwards (or does a kind of U-turn) and returns to say where it was in 2000 or 1997, then it will be restored to being an “orthodox” province of the Anglican Communion – or at least a province wherein the “orthodox” can dwell securely.
I personally reject this analysis and position. Why? Because, in medical care, physical or spiritual, where the diagnosis is false or incomplete then there can be no true and lasting cure. My belief is that conservative Episcopalians have not been given a full, candid and proper diagnosis of the sickness of the ECUSA. Rather, they have been given partial diagnoses which being incomplete are probably dangerous!
In a 64 page large booklet, EPISCOPAL INNOVATIONS 1960-2004, Theological and Historical Reflections on the Episcopal Church, I suggest that ALL the doctrinal, liturgical and moral innovations in ECUSA since the 1960s are inter-related and inter-connected and that they have a common origin. What this common origin is was first clearly suggested in seminars by Professor Charles Caldwell when he taught at Nashotah House in the late 1980s and early 1990s (where he was often a voice crying in the wilderness). After much conversation with him in the 1990s, I have developed and clarified the thesis which he first articulated there, -- a thesis which he created from his reading of Scripture with the help of the Greek Fathers of the Church, and in particular, of the Apostolic Constitutions from the fourth century (but containing much third century material).
Put simply, there has been a sustained rejection of divine order by ECUSA as that is given by God the Holy Trinity in the created order and in the order of the new covenant. Each and every major innovation from the marriage canon of 1973 to the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2004 is a rejection of divine order. Further, there is a lineal relation also between the major innovations for certain had to occur before others could occur – e.g., the Church had to make Christian marriage an option, rather than a requirement and doctrine, before the Church was ready to see the “justice” of blessing same-sex partnerships and ordaining persons in such; and the Church had to reject the Reformed Catholicism of her inherited Formularies in order to open the door to radical, progressive liberalism with a liturgical face
My view is that simply asking the ECUSA to return to its position of the 1997 or 2003 General Convention is like making an incomplete diagnosis and thereby giving the patient the wrong medicine, medicine which does not cure the sickness but makes it worse. The ECUSA needs surgery and medicine which will deal truly with its real and death-threatening sickness.
Episcopal Innovations 1960-2004 will be published by the Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society on March 2nd 2006 and be available at www.anglicanmarketplace.com soon after that date. Individual copies including postage and packing are $7.50 each and may be ordered by sending a check to PBS, P. O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220. Multiple copies (5 or more) are $5.00 each, postage included.
The text may be accessed now at the following websites -- www.virtueonline.org in the theology section; www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 & www.challengeonline.org
I do hope that you will both pay a visit and also order copies to distribute amongst concerned persons to read and ponder. Unless we get the diagnosis right, there can be no real cure. My essay is meant to assist in diagnosis.
Septuagesima 2006 The Revd Dr Peter Toon drpetertoon@yahoo.com
Sunday, February 12, 2006
ORDER and the Prayer Book Society.
“Let all things be done decently [with grace and dignity] and in order,” wrote the Apostle (1 Corinthians 14:40)
The Prayer Book Society of the USA is not a gathered church for it has no congregations or parishes and it is not an evangelization society for it does not plant churches.
The Society is an organization that both commends and provides a service for the churches of the Episcopal or Anglican way and polity – and what it has on offer is highly valued by some and scorned by others inside and outside the ECUSA! What it offers may be described as Ordered – that is, it aims to implement specific aspects of God’s revealed order for his creation and his church.
Perhaps it needs to be made clear that “order” is not about obeying the “orders” of a dictator, boss or military commander. Neither does it refer to the bureaucratic notion that there should be a place for everything and everything in its place. Nor it is an ideology. Rather it points to the fact that God has so made his world that there is a first, middle and last; there is a beginning, a means and an end. One thing is first, another second and yet another last and all things and persons are related according to God’s design.
The Society keeps in print and seeks to encourage use with understanding of the historic, classic prayer book of the Anglican Way – The Book of Common Prayer first published in 1549 and known in North America through three editions currently in use, that of 1662, that of 1928 and that of 1962. These editions of the one BCP contain services for each day and week, for Sundays and holy days, for baptism, confirmation, marriage, burial and other occasions. The Lectionary and each service is called “An order” for it has a beginning, a middle and ending with a clear purpose and doctrine (and thus contrasts with much modern liturgy which allows for great variety in structure and content in use). Likewise the Psalter is arranged in an ordered way for the use and edification of the people of God and by the Calendar there is a walk by faith and with Christ day by day, week by week, season by season.
Since it commends the use of the classic BCP, the Society is also committed to the primary doctrines of that Prayer Book, which it believes are the essential doctrines of Scripture expressed in both Patristic and Reformation language. Thus it is wholly committed to the doctrines of the Creeds – to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and of the One Person of our Lord Jesus made known in two natures, divine and human. Here it sees divine order revealed as belonging both to the internal life of the Trinity in the relations of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and in the external action and word of the Trinity as the Father through the Son and by the Holy Ghost creates, reveals, saves, sanctifies, judges and redeems.
Turning to the creation, divine order as it is experienced in salvation and redemption is presented in the teaching of the Catechism, in the services for Holy Baptism and for Confirmation, and in Holy Communion and the Burial Service. There is a beginning in Baptism, a continuation in Confirmation and a further continuation in the reception of Holy Communion, leading on to presence with a redeemed body at the Messianic Feast in heaven in the age to come. The Eucharistic Lectionary for the weekly Holy Communion provides in the its two parts (Advent to Trinity and Trinity to Advent) ordered doctrinal teaching on which the Church is to meditate.
Divine order, stated in the opening chapters of Genesis and confirmed by our Lord Jesus, is also seen in the creation of man as male and female and their relation to one another, where the man is first in order and the women is second. In the marriage service there is a clear presentation of the divine order wherein the male and the female are joined as one flesh for procreation and for mutual help and friendship until death causes them to be parted.
Divine order in the new covenant and within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is further seen in the ordered Ministry of the Bishop, Priest and Deacon, as these are assumed in the BCP and ordination services for them are provided in the Ordinal which is bound with the BCP as one book.
By submission to Divine order there is freedom to serve God in peace and joy, and this is communicated by not a few of the Collects in the BCP. By joining with the orders of angels and archangels in worship the Church experiences the first-fruit of the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity that shall be in the age to come.
The popularity of forms of services today that both lack the basic doctrines of order and are also without clear order in their structure reflects an age where discipline, formation of good habits and submission to those above us in the Lord are not highly prized, but rather individualism, subjectivism, relativism, relevancy and spontaneity are often and widely assumed to be the norms to follow.
Let all things be done decently [with grace and dignity] and in order! Let freedom be discovered through submission to the God of all freedom and let spontaneity be known in the disciplined walk in the Spirit with the Lord.
Do Visit www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 & www.anglicanmarketplace.com
The Revd Dr. Peter Toon Septuagesima 2006
The Prayer Book Society of the USA is not a gathered church for it has no congregations or parishes and it is not an evangelization society for it does not plant churches.
The Society is an organization that both commends and provides a service for the churches of the Episcopal or Anglican way and polity – and what it has on offer is highly valued by some and scorned by others inside and outside the ECUSA! What it offers may be described as Ordered – that is, it aims to implement specific aspects of God’s revealed order for his creation and his church.
Perhaps it needs to be made clear that “order” is not about obeying the “orders” of a dictator, boss or military commander. Neither does it refer to the bureaucratic notion that there should be a place for everything and everything in its place. Nor it is an ideology. Rather it points to the fact that God has so made his world that there is a first, middle and last; there is a beginning, a means and an end. One thing is first, another second and yet another last and all things and persons are related according to God’s design.
The Society keeps in print and seeks to encourage use with understanding of the historic, classic prayer book of the Anglican Way – The Book of Common Prayer first published in 1549 and known in North America through three editions currently in use, that of 1662, that of 1928 and that of 1962. These editions of the one BCP contain services for each day and week, for Sundays and holy days, for baptism, confirmation, marriage, burial and other occasions. The Lectionary and each service is called “An order” for it has a beginning, a middle and ending with a clear purpose and doctrine (and thus contrasts with much modern liturgy which allows for great variety in structure and content in use). Likewise the Psalter is arranged in an ordered way for the use and edification of the people of God and by the Calendar there is a walk by faith and with Christ day by day, week by week, season by season.
Since it commends the use of the classic BCP, the Society is also committed to the primary doctrines of that Prayer Book, which it believes are the essential doctrines of Scripture expressed in both Patristic and Reformation language. Thus it is wholly committed to the doctrines of the Creeds – to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and of the One Person of our Lord Jesus made known in two natures, divine and human. Here it sees divine order revealed as belonging both to the internal life of the Trinity in the relations of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and in the external action and word of the Trinity as the Father through the Son and by the Holy Ghost creates, reveals, saves, sanctifies, judges and redeems.
Turning to the creation, divine order as it is experienced in salvation and redemption is presented in the teaching of the Catechism, in the services for Holy Baptism and for Confirmation, and in Holy Communion and the Burial Service. There is a beginning in Baptism, a continuation in Confirmation and a further continuation in the reception of Holy Communion, leading on to presence with a redeemed body at the Messianic Feast in heaven in the age to come. The Eucharistic Lectionary for the weekly Holy Communion provides in the its two parts (Advent to Trinity and Trinity to Advent) ordered doctrinal teaching on which the Church is to meditate.
Divine order, stated in the opening chapters of Genesis and confirmed by our Lord Jesus, is also seen in the creation of man as male and female and their relation to one another, where the man is first in order and the women is second. In the marriage service there is a clear presentation of the divine order wherein the male and the female are joined as one flesh for procreation and for mutual help and friendship until death causes them to be parted.
Divine order in the new covenant and within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is further seen in the ordered Ministry of the Bishop, Priest and Deacon, as these are assumed in the BCP and ordination services for them are provided in the Ordinal which is bound with the BCP as one book.
By submission to Divine order there is freedom to serve God in peace and joy, and this is communicated by not a few of the Collects in the BCP. By joining with the orders of angels and archangels in worship the Church experiences the first-fruit of the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity that shall be in the age to come.
The popularity of forms of services today that both lack the basic doctrines of order and are also without clear order in their structure reflects an age where discipline, formation of good habits and submission to those above us in the Lord are not highly prized, but rather individualism, subjectivism, relativism, relevancy and spontaneity are often and widely assumed to be the norms to follow.
Let all things be done decently [with grace and dignity] and in order! Let freedom be discovered through submission to the God of all freedom and let spontaneity be known in the disciplined walk in the Spirit with the Lord.
Do Visit www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 & www.anglicanmarketplace.com
The Revd Dr. Peter Toon Septuagesima 2006
Women as Bishops: Rowan Williams of Canterbury got it right
At the close of the debate in the Synod of the Church of England in early February 2006, Dr Williams said:
"People have talked at times about differences of opinion and how the Church can live with differences of opinion. I think that the problem is, for those who are not content with the idea that we should go forward along the line of ordaining women as bishops, the problem is not one of opinion, it’s rather one of obedience. It’s one of obedience to Scripture, or obedience to the consensus of the Church Catholic. And, while that’s not a view I wholly share, I think we ought to recognise that that’s where it comes from, those who hold to it are not just thinking ‘this is a matter of opinion’. And therefore it is rightly and understandably a lot harder to deal with dissent if you are talking about what fundamentally comes down to a question of whether you obey God or human authority. That’s why it’s serious. That’s why it’s difficult. It is more than ‘opinion’."
Let us note some themes in these very significant words.
"People have talked at times about differences of opinion and how the Church can live with differences of opinion. I think that the problem is, for those who are not content with the idea that we should go forward along the line of ordaining women as bishops, the problem is not one of opinion, it’s rather one of obedience. It’s one of obedience to Scripture, or obedience to the consensus of the Church Catholic. And, while that’s not a view I wholly share, I think we ought to recognise that that’s where it comes from, those who hold to it are not just thinking ‘this is a matter of opinion’. And therefore it is rightly and understandably a lot harder to deal with dissent if you are talking about what fundamentally comes down to a question of whether you obey God or human authority. That’s why it’s serious. That’s why it’s difficult. It is more than ‘opinion’."
Let us note some themes in these very significant words.
- Everyone has an opinion and this is assumed as a given by the media daily in their polls – opinion polls. But most of what we call opinions are not based on sustained study and prolonged investigation but on current feelings and circumstances, and often just selfishness. Opinions come and go.
- The Archbishop recognizes that opposition to the ordaining of women as priests, and the consecrating of women priests as bishops, is not mere opinion (as that word is used in the West today). It is something much more profound and much deeper than opinion.
- Dr Williams knows that serious students of the Bible, who regard it as God’s Word written, find there that there is in God’s ordering of the world a patriarchy (generous and gracious) to be exercised by the man in church and family. The father or bishop is to be a “father in God” (see the Ordinal of 1662/1928). Then the apostle Paul teaches that the man is to be the “head” of the family and “head” (pastor) of Christ’s flock. Again in a generous and gracious way.
- He also fully recognizes that the Tradition of the Church (as stated clearly by the contemporary Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) is that of a succession of male bishops. Jesus appointed only chosen men as his apostles, but both women and men as his disciples. In obeying Christ as Lord, the Church has only male bishops as fathers in God.
- Thus he is well aware that if one takes as of divine authority the choice of men as the apostles and the Tradition of male bishops then one cannot accept a woman as a bishop, however saintly and gifted she is, for it is a betrayal of faith and an act of disobedience to the Lord of the Church to set aside his known will.
Obviously, Dr Williams wholly understands this doctrine and knows it to be authentic, even though he leans towards finding ways to accommodate calls for women bishops to keep the peace in the C of E.
I am quite sure that Dr Williams knows well the content of The Apostolic Constitutions from the fourth century (but containing material from the third). Here the Church is portrayed as being in a culture where women were priests and where the Church had to think very seriously about why its tradition did not allow for women priests or even for women to baptize. The answer it gave was based on God’s order in creation and in the new covenant.
Women are more than capable of performing the work of Ministry but if they did so then grave disorder would enter the Church. Why? Because in God’s order man is male and female and in this creation by God there is order, a first and a second (not a superior and an inferior). The man is first in order and the woman is second in order, but they are equal in dignity and status before God and serve God together in a complementary manner. St Paul spoke of the hierarchy of holy relations in this way – God the Father, the Incarnate Son, the man/father and the women/wife. In God’s order the Son is subject to the Father and the man and woman to the Incarnate Son, and the woman to the man. Yet this is the subjection of love and service within a gracious and generous patriarchy. Thus God’s word in creation and in redemption forbids the woman to rule over the man; rather it requires the man to rule yet with nothing less than the love of Christ.
In the USA the Anglican Mission in America and the Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions are to be congratulated on standing firm to the principle of Scripture and Tradition in terms of headship in the ordained Ministry. In contrast, the Network and the Anglican Coalition in Canada cannot be congratulated because they have followed the modern doctrine of human rights in accepting the headship of women as probably OK and thereby have set aside obedience to the statutes of the Lord written into the created and redemptive orders.
We await with interest news of how the FinF of Britain deals with the developing situation in the C of E of the abandoning of divine order and headship. At the same time we watch with interest to see whether the ACN and the ACinC do some rethinking on the matter of headship in a world where human rights provide the basis of morality for most people and thus make the task of the Church to display headship very difficult.
Septuagesima, 2006. Dr. Peter Toon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)