New Westminster Diocese, British Columbia, Canada, & the Recommendations of the Anglican Panel of Reference. Comments by the Revd Dr Peter Toon October 14, 2006
We are being constantly being told that the Anglican Family (“Communion of Churches”) is gradually developing a Conciliar Polity, where autonomy with interdependency (not autonomy with independence) will characterize each Province (“Church”), and where Provinces will be held together by an Anglican Covenant, that all sign, even as the “Instruments of Unity” (e.g., Archbishop of Canterbury and Primates Meeting) seek to keep relations within and between Provinces sweet and smooth.
This Conciliar Polity can only work, and will only succeed, if there is present throughout the whole Communion of Churches the presence and the exercise of the grace of patience. Impatience and activism destroy fragile conciliarism. Receiving advice and counsel, asking for resolution to problems, either from the Instruments themselves (or panels, commissions, and working groups that they actually set up) is both an exercise in patience and in humility. There seems to be—as yet, even with global instant communication—no way for the working parts of the Conciliar Polity to make sound decisions quickly (and there is no Prefect in the “Anglican Vatican” to rule instantly). With time and practice they will, however, get quicker!
A perfect example of how slowly the wheels turn and decisions/recommendations are made is provided by the arrival in print of the Report of the Panel of Reference whose judgment (two years in the making) was published on the Anglican Communion Website on October 12, 2006.
This Panel of Reference, set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made recommendations concerning the acute problems in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada. These were caused initially by the implementation of radical innovations in the doctrine and practice of sexual relations. Here the Bishop, Michael Ingham, refused to accept Conciliar Polity in terms of the moral requirements laid down by the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in 1998 concerning blessing same-sex couples, and chose to innovate knowing that what he did and allowed would be a major offence both to many in his diocese and to millions within the 80 million strong Anglican Family. In response to his actions some parishes left the diocese and others appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury for help with regard to being granted faithful oversight, since they could not—and still cannot—receive in good conscience the ministry of their erring Bishop.
To appreciate what the Panel has recommended we must bear in mind that, despite many words of condemnation uttered from Provinces of the Global South, it is a fact that the Church of England (and other western Provinces) are still “in communion” with the Anglican Church of Canada and that, as yet, this Church has not officially in General Synod examined either The Windsor Report or other relevant reports and recommendations in the area of sexual innovations. The Panel had to come up with something that reflected how things are in official terms as seen out of the windows of Lambeth Palace, not how things are in the feelings and intentions of those who have been utterly horrified by the bad decisions of the Bishop of New Westminster and of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, U.S.A.
At the center of the recommendations from the Panel are these two:
2. In the present temporary situation, the Panel recognizes that an agreed scheme of extended episcopal ministry needs to be offered to a number of clergy and parishes within the Diocese of New Westminster, which will both provide for their spiritual needs and offer assurance of continuity for their distinctive theological tradition.
3. Such a scheme should be achieved within the Anglican Church in Canada itself, at national or provincial level. The bishop of a diocese is subject to the general ecclesiastical law of the church or province concerned, and one would look to the Anglican Church of Canada for action to be taken in the first instance. The provision of a scheme of Shared Episcopal Ministry [SEM] by the Canadian House of Bishops in 2004 offers a model which we believe to be appropriate, with some additional safeguards designed to take account of the special circumstances prevailing in this case, given the protracted and deep divisions which exist.
Then it proposes that the emergence of this working situation—of an Episcopal Visitor being deeply involved in the protesting parishes— be protected by various safeguards made on both sides, by the diocese and the protesting parishes. For example, the diocese will eradicate from its records all charges against the clergy and parishes, and the latter in turn will pay their diocesan quotas and conduct themselves in such a way as to be members of the diocese. It all seems very reasonable and fair—if seen from the perspective of Lambeth Palace and the palaces of most English, Australian and South African bishops.
However, from the perspective of the Global South it is too little, too late. Presiding Bishop Venables of the Southern Cone, who is known for plain speaking, has written:
Given that the Panel of Reference process has taken twenty painfully slow and drawn-out months to do what was considered desperately urgent at the onset, it is now tragic to receive a report that fails to address the crisis in New Westminster adequately. It simply does not reflect the depth nor the severity of the crisis that has been precipitated by Michael Ingham's actions.
Bishop Gregory obviously thinks that the parishes should have been cut free from New Westminster altogether and put under the pastoral guidance of a Global South Bishop.
The Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomes, also of the Global South, has provided a fairly technical comment on the Recommendations, which cannot be easily summarized. However he ends this way:
While one appreciates the legal logic displayed by the Panel, one cannot help but conclude that the Panel has failed to understand the political and theological reality of the situation in which the applicants find themselves. Consequently, in my opinion, the recommendations of the Panel do not respond adequately to the real situation. In addition the Panel seems to have ignored the present situation in the Communion as described by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his 14th of September, 2006, letter:
"It is clear that the Communion as a whole remains committed to the teaching on human sexuality expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, and also that the recommendations of the Windsor Report have been widely accepted as a basis for any progress in resolving the tensions that trouble us. As a Communion, we need to move forward on the basis of this twofold recognition."
The Panel is recommending that the applicants who share the position outlined by the Archbishop of Canterbury submit to the jurisdiction of a bishop who vociferously denies both of the elements so clearly articulated by the Archbishop. In the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Province of Canada provide a secure resting place for the applicants while the Province prepares for its General Synod. Christian charity demands no less.
I recommend that we agree with (my old friend) Archbishop Drexel and that we pray that to all in New Westminster will be given the grace of time and humility so that they can patiently and graciously continue for as long as it takes for the (providence of God through the) Conciliar Polity of the Anglican Communion to decide the status in the Anglican Family of the Anglican Church of Canada! The next few years are going to be times of pain and tribulation for my friends in British Columbia; but, in and through these (see Romans 5;1-5), there is the promise that they and we shall all be able to rejoice in the glory of God!
The Revd Dr Peter Toon, President of the Prayer Book Society of the USA, www.anglicansatpratyer.org and www.pbsusa.org and www.anglicanmarketplace.com
Monday, October 16, 2006
A letter...
The Rev’d Dick Kim
Detroit. October 13, 2006
My dear Dick,
I want to share something with you so that you can share it with others.
You and I spend a lot of time watching the Anglican Tribe and especially its Patriarchs and “movers and shakers.” We have observed how inconsistent most members (including ourselves) of this Family are—that is they/we can see the problems in others but they/we cannot see them in their/our own stance. (e.g., the Global South Primates accuse the ECUSA of not being “Windsor-compliant” when they themselves seem to think that they are “above” Windsor’s recommendations in everything except sexual ethics!).
What I am focusing much upon now is IDENTITY. The present “crisis” in the Anglican Tribe (which of course was there before Gene Robinson was ever heard of, but in a smoldering form) is raising severely the question of Who are Anglicans? and What are they? The answers to these questions are varied and usually sincere but their multitude is the very outward and real form of the crisis of identity we are all facing.
The answer from The Virginia Report of 1998 and The Windsor Report of 2004 is essentially to strengthen the Instruments of Unity (including elevating the powers of the Archbishop of C) and to create an Anglican Covenant for all Provinces to sign. It is hoped that these measures will provide sufficient Conciliar reality as to provide self-discipline (e.g., if a province wants to innovate and does so then it breaks the covenant and puts itself out).
I can see all kinds of wisdom in developing Conciliar features slowly and thoroughly but I also want to add one important thing. It is this. That there needs to be a global attempt—and most certainly an American attempt—to examine the “birth certificate” or the “founding documents” or “the naturalization papers” of the Anglican Way and seek to conform our present doctrines and practice to the content of them.
That is, we need to discover afresh the Anglican Formularies and seek to trim our modern sails so that they takes us in the direction and spirit that is found in these irreplaceable and unique statements of what is the Anglican Way. Regrettably so many Anglicans, both formerly in the ECUSA and still in it, have never looked at their Birth Certificate for it was effectively destroyed in 1976-1979 and a new one written, which also seems to be the very Certificate with which The Network in the ECUSA identifies for all practical purposes (and this is tragic!).
Let us all go back to the Bible (in a sound translation!) and to the Three Formularies—the classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles, as printed in the BCP 1662 or Canadian 1962 or American 1928—and start again our attempt to define our IDENTITY through engagement with these..
Empirically right now the depressing evidence from the USA is that the Anglican Way has many faces and many manifestations from generic evangelical-charismatic to imitative pre-Vatican II Roman, with all kinds of peculiarities in between. Very few in contemporary USA Anglicanism are the bishops, priests and parishes which seek to be conformed to the original identity in a suitably restrained and dignified modern form. (As with so much in our lives as westerners we are always desirous of the latest gadget or thing and we discard so much that is good- in the case of religion, our Formularies.)
If all the groups sought to move towards the original shape and content of the Anglican way from their varied positions out on some far perimeter, then may be the ability to talk, to appreciate one another and see the need for a minimal Conciliar polity. Let us earnestly work for unity from the Holy Spirit in the truth of Christ Jesus, as we look together at our “birth certificate” or “founding documents” or “naturalization documents” (or whatever else we choose to call them). Let us be willing to shed some or most of our idiosyncrasies and seek to dress in the same basic school uniform—the uniform of the school of Christ as it exists in the historic Anglican Way. Right now we come to school dressed in everything but a basically common uniform.
Right now the acute pain of being an Anglican in North America is greater than its occasional joys! Let us hope that you and I live long enough to see a distinct improvement, to which with God’s gracious help and guidance, we all are enabled to contribute.
Yours sincerely,
Peter
P.S. I do think that the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. and that of Canada each has a renewed vocation right now, which is, to help as many people as possible in North America find a smooth route to the appreciation of the genuine Anglican Formularies—encourage them please to visit www.pbsusa.org and www.anglicansatprayer.org and www.anglicanmarketplace.com as a starter, but chiefly to make a sincere attempt to engage prayerfully with the Formularies.
Detroit. October 13, 2006
My dear Dick,
I want to share something with you so that you can share it with others.
You and I spend a lot of time watching the Anglican Tribe and especially its Patriarchs and “movers and shakers.” We have observed how inconsistent most members (including ourselves) of this Family are—that is they/we can see the problems in others but they/we cannot see them in their/our own stance. (e.g., the Global South Primates accuse the ECUSA of not being “Windsor-compliant” when they themselves seem to think that they are “above” Windsor’s recommendations in everything except sexual ethics!).
What I am focusing much upon now is IDENTITY. The present “crisis” in the Anglican Tribe (which of course was there before Gene Robinson was ever heard of, but in a smoldering form) is raising severely the question of Who are Anglicans? and What are they? The answers to these questions are varied and usually sincere but their multitude is the very outward and real form of the crisis of identity we are all facing.
The answer from The Virginia Report of 1998 and The Windsor Report of 2004 is essentially to strengthen the Instruments of Unity (including elevating the powers of the Archbishop of C) and to create an Anglican Covenant for all Provinces to sign. It is hoped that these measures will provide sufficient Conciliar reality as to provide self-discipline (e.g., if a province wants to innovate and does so then it breaks the covenant and puts itself out).
I can see all kinds of wisdom in developing Conciliar features slowly and thoroughly but I also want to add one important thing. It is this. That there needs to be a global attempt—and most certainly an American attempt—to examine the “birth certificate” or the “founding documents” or “the naturalization papers” of the Anglican Way and seek to conform our present doctrines and practice to the content of them.
That is, we need to discover afresh the Anglican Formularies and seek to trim our modern sails so that they takes us in the direction and spirit that is found in these irreplaceable and unique statements of what is the Anglican Way. Regrettably so many Anglicans, both formerly in the ECUSA and still in it, have never looked at their Birth Certificate for it was effectively destroyed in 1976-1979 and a new one written, which also seems to be the very Certificate with which The Network in the ECUSA identifies for all practical purposes (and this is tragic!).
Let us all go back to the Bible (in a sound translation!) and to the Three Formularies—the classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles, as printed in the BCP 1662 or Canadian 1962 or American 1928—and start again our attempt to define our IDENTITY through engagement with these..
Empirically right now the depressing evidence from the USA is that the Anglican Way has many faces and many manifestations from generic evangelical-charismatic to imitative pre-Vatican II Roman, with all kinds of peculiarities in between. Very few in contemporary USA Anglicanism are the bishops, priests and parishes which seek to be conformed to the original identity in a suitably restrained and dignified modern form. (As with so much in our lives as westerners we are always desirous of the latest gadget or thing and we discard so much that is good- in the case of religion, our Formularies.)
If all the groups sought to move towards the original shape and content of the Anglican way from their varied positions out on some far perimeter, then may be the ability to talk, to appreciate one another and see the need for a minimal Conciliar polity. Let us earnestly work for unity from the Holy Spirit in the truth of Christ Jesus, as we look together at our “birth certificate” or “founding documents” or “naturalization documents” (or whatever else we choose to call them). Let us be willing to shed some or most of our idiosyncrasies and seek to dress in the same basic school uniform—the uniform of the school of Christ as it exists in the historic Anglican Way. Right now we come to school dressed in everything but a basically common uniform.
Right now the acute pain of being an Anglican in North America is greater than its occasional joys! Let us hope that you and I live long enough to see a distinct improvement, to which with God’s gracious help and guidance, we all are enabled to contribute.
Yours sincerely,
Peter
P.S. I do think that the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. and that of Canada each has a renewed vocation right now, which is, to help as many people as possible in North America find a smooth route to the appreciation of the genuine Anglican Formularies—encourage them please to visit www.pbsusa.org and www.anglicansatprayer.org and www.anglicanmarketplace.com as a starter, but chiefly to make a sincere attempt to engage prayerfully with the Formularies.
Bringing the ECUSA Network formularies in line with the Global South's
Is it time for “the Orthodox” in North America in gratitude to take a REAL STAND for Anglican Truth in response to the good will and actions of the Primates of the Global South?
No doubt the recent statement from the Primates of the Global South from Kigali, Rwanda, on September 22, 2006, was most encouraging to the membership of The Anglican Communion Network in the U.S.A. and Canada. After expressing real misgivings about the ECUSA response to The Windsor Report at its June 2006 General Convention, the statement went on:
We are, however, greatly encouraged by the continued faithfulness of the Network Dioceses and all of the other congregations and communities of faithful Anglicans in North America. In addition, we commend the members of the Anglican Network in Canada for their commitment to historic, biblical faith and practice. We value their courage and consistent witness. We are also pleased by the emergence of a wider circle of 'Windsor Dioceses' and urge all of them to walk more closely together and deliberately work towards the unity that Christ enjoins. We are aware that a growing number of congregations are receiving oversight from dioceses in the Global South and in recent days we have received requests to provide Alternative Primatial Oversight for a number of dioceses. This is an unprecedented situation in our Communion….
And a little later we read:
We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to develop such a proposal in consultation with the appropriate instruments of unity of the Communion. We understand the serious implications of this determination. We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.
Here we note that the members of the Network are congratulated for their “faithfulness” and “commitment to historic, biblical faith and practice” and are said to be those who hold firmly “to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.” They are given the real hope of a new, orthodox Province for North America into which they will be able to move away from the clutches of the “apostate” ECUSA.
Now it is difficult to believe that the Primates in their congratulations only had in mind the traditional sexual ethics promoted by The Network. They appear to assume that the Network churches and members are wholly and really committed (as the Primates are by their own Provincial Constitutions and Formularies—usually BCP 1662) to historic Anglican faith and practice. Let us be clear, this assumption is true for the Canadians (see the important Solemn Declaration printed at page viii in their splendid 1962 BCP); but—and this is the question for those south of the border—is it true, really true, for the members, parishes and dioceses of The Network within the Episcopal Church?
I much regret to have to say this—and it is not the first time that I have felt a duty to say it— but the vast majority of the Network membership within the ECUSA appears not to be committed practically and really to “historic Anglican faith.” What do I mean by this seemingly “preposterous” statement? I mean very simply that the Formularies of the ECUSA, to which all bishops and clergy in the ECUSA must be committed in order to be canonically resident and licensed, are not the Formularies known in Canada or in Nigeria or Uganda or Rwanda or in England or in thirty or so other provinces.
The Formularies known by the Global South and in Canada were effectively rejected in the ECUSA by majority votes in 1976 and 1979 and new ones of mixed theology and morality were put in their place. All the new ones are found in the ECUSA Prayer Book of 1976/79—the liturgies, the ordination services and the “outline of faith”—and the 1979 Book (wrongly and mischievously called “The BCP”) is the actual Formulary of the ECUSA (and as far as I can see a majority of The Network people use this without blinking an eye and happily treat it as their Formulary).
May I suggest that the best way for The Network to receive in gratitude the encouraging support from the Primates of the Global South is to do what they ought to have done a long time ago. That is, to declare that for them, practically and really, the true Formularies are those which were in place before 1976 (as printed in The BCP, 1928) and that the 1979 Book is to be seen as the equivalent of what is known in Canada as BAS (Book of Alternative Services) or as was known in England as ASB (Alternative Service Book).
Repentance is most surely needed within The Network of ECUSA not only for what the ECUSA did to the received, classic Anglican Way in the 1970s (it effectively trashed it!) but also for the way in which those who wished to use the classic BCP (1928) in the ECUSA were treated even persecuted between 1980 and 2003—and sometimes by the very dioceses now claiming to be orthodox and receiving the praise of the Primates.
This action of recovering the basic Anglican Formularies by the ECUSA part of The Network is much more important than opposing the recent sexual agenda of the ECUSA, for the one is foundational and the other is as removing bad fruit from a bad root. Many “extra-mural” Anglicans or (as the Network has called them “Anglicans of the diaspora”) in the U.S.A. and millions abroad, would be delighted to see The ECUSA Network taking a real and true stand for biblical, orthodox, Anglican Faith and becoming of the same Anglican Faith as those presently supporting them abroad and at home. In fact, does not the ECUSA Network owe it to them, and more importantly, to God to become in practice what it allows people abroad to think that it is in reality? I look forward to seeing greater use of the American 1928 BCP either in its classic English form or in an appropriate contemporary English form—preserving the doctrine and style of the original (the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. could provide this); and along with this the cessation of the practice of calling the 1979 Book by the hallowed name of “The BCP.”
Let us pray earnestly for the renewal and unifying of the Anglican Way in North America (do visit, www.anglicansatprayer.org )
(See further the important study, Neither Orthodoxy Nor A Formulary, a critique of the 1979 Book, by the late Lou Tarsitano with Peter Toon, available online from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from 1-800-727-1928.)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
No doubt the recent statement from the Primates of the Global South from Kigali, Rwanda, on September 22, 2006, was most encouraging to the membership of The Anglican Communion Network in the U.S.A. and Canada. After expressing real misgivings about the ECUSA response to The Windsor Report at its June 2006 General Convention, the statement went on:
We are, however, greatly encouraged by the continued faithfulness of the Network Dioceses and all of the other congregations and communities of faithful Anglicans in North America. In addition, we commend the members of the Anglican Network in Canada for their commitment to historic, biblical faith and practice. We value their courage and consistent witness. We are also pleased by the emergence of a wider circle of 'Windsor Dioceses' and urge all of them to walk more closely together and deliberately work towards the unity that Christ enjoins. We are aware that a growing number of congregations are receiving oversight from dioceses in the Global South and in recent days we have received requests to provide Alternative Primatial Oversight for a number of dioceses. This is an unprecedented situation in our Communion….
And a little later we read:
We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to develop such a proposal in consultation with the appropriate instruments of unity of the Communion. We understand the serious implications of this determination. We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.
Here we note that the members of the Network are congratulated for their “faithfulness” and “commitment to historic, biblical faith and practice” and are said to be those who hold firmly “to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.” They are given the real hope of a new, orthodox Province for North America into which they will be able to move away from the clutches of the “apostate” ECUSA.
Now it is difficult to believe that the Primates in their congratulations only had in mind the traditional sexual ethics promoted by The Network. They appear to assume that the Network churches and members are wholly and really committed (as the Primates are by their own Provincial Constitutions and Formularies—usually BCP 1662) to historic Anglican faith and practice. Let us be clear, this assumption is true for the Canadians (see the important Solemn Declaration printed at page viii in their splendid 1962 BCP); but—and this is the question for those south of the border—is it true, really true, for the members, parishes and dioceses of The Network within the Episcopal Church?
I much regret to have to say this—and it is not the first time that I have felt a duty to say it— but the vast majority of the Network membership within the ECUSA appears not to be committed practically and really to “historic Anglican faith.” What do I mean by this seemingly “preposterous” statement? I mean very simply that the Formularies of the ECUSA, to which all bishops and clergy in the ECUSA must be committed in order to be canonically resident and licensed, are not the Formularies known in Canada or in Nigeria or Uganda or Rwanda or in England or in thirty or so other provinces.
The Formularies known by the Global South and in Canada were effectively rejected in the ECUSA by majority votes in 1976 and 1979 and new ones of mixed theology and morality were put in their place. All the new ones are found in the ECUSA Prayer Book of 1976/79—the liturgies, the ordination services and the “outline of faith”—and the 1979 Book (wrongly and mischievously called “The BCP”) is the actual Formulary of the ECUSA (and as far as I can see a majority of The Network people use this without blinking an eye and happily treat it as their Formulary).
May I suggest that the best way for The Network to receive in gratitude the encouraging support from the Primates of the Global South is to do what they ought to have done a long time ago. That is, to declare that for them, practically and really, the true Formularies are those which were in place before 1976 (as printed in The BCP, 1928) and that the 1979 Book is to be seen as the equivalent of what is known in Canada as BAS (Book of Alternative Services) or as was known in England as ASB (Alternative Service Book).
Repentance is most surely needed within The Network of ECUSA not only for what the ECUSA did to the received, classic Anglican Way in the 1970s (it effectively trashed it!) but also for the way in which those who wished to use the classic BCP (1928) in the ECUSA were treated even persecuted between 1980 and 2003—and sometimes by the very dioceses now claiming to be orthodox and receiving the praise of the Primates.
This action of recovering the basic Anglican Formularies by the ECUSA part of The Network is much more important than opposing the recent sexual agenda of the ECUSA, for the one is foundational and the other is as removing bad fruit from a bad root. Many “extra-mural” Anglicans or (as the Network has called them “Anglicans of the diaspora”) in the U.S.A. and millions abroad, would be delighted to see The ECUSA Network taking a real and true stand for biblical, orthodox, Anglican Faith and becoming of the same Anglican Faith as those presently supporting them abroad and at home. In fact, does not the ECUSA Network owe it to them, and more importantly, to God to become in practice what it allows people abroad to think that it is in reality? I look forward to seeing greater use of the American 1928 BCP either in its classic English form or in an appropriate contemporary English form—preserving the doctrine and style of the original (the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. could provide this); and along with this the cessation of the practice of calling the 1979 Book by the hallowed name of “The BCP.”
Let us pray earnestly for the renewal and unifying of the Anglican Way in North America (do visit, www.anglicansatprayer.org )
(See further the important study, Neither Orthodoxy Nor A Formulary, a critique of the 1979 Book, by the late Lou Tarsitano with Peter Toon, available online from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from 1-800-727-1928.)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Panel of Reference Report Available
The Archbishop of Canterbury's PANEL OF REFERENCE (POR) for the Anglican Communion report on the Diocese of New Westminster is now available at the following link on the Anglican Communion Website:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reference/docs/report_october.pdf
The entire report is here presented in 32 paragraphs with 4 recommendations.
The Panel of Reference is chaired by the Most Revd Peter Carnley and staffed through the Anglican Communion Office, London, by the Revd Canon Gregory Cameron. The panel first met in July 2005.
The functions of the Panel include :
[at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury] "to enquire into, consider and report on situations drawn to my attention where there is serious dispute concerning the adequacy of schemes of delegated or extended episcopal oversight or other extraordinary arrangements which may be needed to provide for parishes which find it impossible in all conscience to accept the direct ministry of their own diocesan bishop or for dioceses in dispute with their provincial authorities;
With [his] consent to make recommendations to the Primates, dioceses and provincial and diocesan authorities concerned, and to report to [him] on their response;
At the request of any Primate to provide a facility for mediation and to assist in the implementation of any such scheme in his own province."
==============================================
This is the best practically that the parishes in Vancouver BC could expect
The Revd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil (Oxford)
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reference/docs/report_october.pdf
The entire report is here presented in 32 paragraphs with 4 recommendations.
The Panel of Reference is chaired by the Most Revd Peter Carnley and staffed through the Anglican Communion Office, London, by the Revd Canon Gregory Cameron. The panel first met in July 2005.
The functions of the Panel include :
[at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury] "to enquire into, consider and report on situations drawn to my attention where there is serious dispute concerning the adequacy of schemes of delegated or extended episcopal oversight or other extraordinary arrangements which may be needed to provide for parishes which find it impossible in all conscience to accept the direct ministry of their own diocesan bishop or for dioceses in dispute with their provincial authorities;
With [his] consent to make recommendations to the Primates, dioceses and provincial and diocesan authorities concerned, and to report to [him] on their response;
At the request of any Primate to provide a facility for mediation and to assist in the implementation of any such scheme in his own province."
==============================================
This is the best practically that the parishes in Vancouver BC could expect
The Revd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil (Oxford)
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Anglican Formularies—let us cease to avoid, undermine or deny them & let us affirm them instead!
---------a discussion starter for charitable persons---------------
One of the regrettable features of the Anglican Way recently has been the attempt on both right and left (not to mention the center) to avoid, undermine or deny what is so clearly stated in the Anglican Birth Certificate about IDENTITY. On that certificate are the Formularies—Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal & Articles of Religion—and they are an inescapable and real part of the original and continuing identity of not only the Church of England but also of the Anglican Way in the global Family of Churches (with eighty or so million members). The three Formularies were written by the same team, led by Archbishop Cranmer.
If ever the Anglican Way is to come out of its present crisis and assume a stable form that is recognizably Anglican then it surely must take its original identity seriously into account.
Let us briefly note ways used in the present, especially in America, to dismiss the content of the Anglican Birth Certificate. And let us do so in order to learn how to re-create and preserve Anglican identity in a suitable form for today and tomorrow.
1. Goodbye to The Book of Common Prayer
The ECUSA way was to create a book of varied services with varied doctrines and mischievously call it The BCP, 1979. So Episcopalians of all kinds engage in corporate denial of the truth in using it, and meanwhile the real BCP (editions 1789-1928) is sent to the archives (though OUP still prints it!).
The usual (western) Anglican method is to create “A Book of Alternative Services” of one kind or another, and then make this for all practical purposes the Formulary, while retaining the real BCP in the canon law.
A method used by some Anglo-Catholics is to use The Anglican Missal or another of like kind, wherein the Reformed Catholic Faith of the Anglican Way is changed into a pale copy of Tridentine Catholicism. In contrast, in England the modern Roman Missal is used in some Forward in Faith parishes instead of an Anglican rite.
2. Goodbye to The Form and Manner of Making Deacons…Priests…and Bishops
The ECUSA way was to create new services for ordination and put them into its (so-called) BCP, 1979. Thus women’s ordination and changed emphases in the doctrine of ordination are incorporated as part of the new Formulary of 1979.
The usual (western) Anglican method is to place ordination services within “A Book of Alternative Services” and then treat them as if they were the real thing, even though canon law points to the classic and historic Ordinal as the Formulary.
A method used by some Anglo-Catholic Continuing Anglican groups is to use the words of the traditional Anglican text but to add to it elaborate ceremonial taken from the Tridentine Rite so as by this to change the doctrine of the priesthood into one that is more like that of Rome.
3. Goodbye to The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion
The ECUSA way was to send this statement of Reformed Catholicism off to the archives as historical documents without any role as Formulary after 1979.
The usual (western) Anglican method is to claim that the Articles were probably good and right for their time but do not have much relevance now. So they are accepted as right for their time of origin and useful as an indication as to where the Church of England once stood.
A common Anglo-Catholic way is to reject them as “Protestant” – as apparently in The St Louis Affirmation of Faith of 1977.
Conclusion
To reject the Formularies is effectively to deny the content of the Birth Certificate of the Anglican Way. It is to create something new and different whether that be (as with ECUSA) a radically progressive religion or (as with some full-blooded Anglo-Catholics) a pale imitation of Roman Catholicism as it was before, or even as it is, after Vatican II.
To recover meaningful identity Anglicans of all kinds need to move definitely towards the Formularies, to engage with them, in worship, doctrine and discipline so that the Anglican Way is identifiable and has an identity. That is, it is like a sold wheel with a common hub, with spokes going out from it to the fixed perimeter. Right now too many spokes go on and through the perimeter into a kind on ecumenical or evangelical-charismatic or Roman no-man’s land and the Anglican Way is without clear identity!
If the classic Formularies are not clearly present in the proposed Anglican Covenant (by which all member Churches will be bound in bonds of peace and truth) then there is little hope for a common identity for the present, disordered Anglican Communion of Churches.
(see further The Anglican Formularies and Holy Scripture, available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com )
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
One of the regrettable features of the Anglican Way recently has been the attempt on both right and left (not to mention the center) to avoid, undermine or deny what is so clearly stated in the Anglican Birth Certificate about IDENTITY. On that certificate are the Formularies—Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal & Articles of Religion—and they are an inescapable and real part of the original and continuing identity of not only the Church of England but also of the Anglican Way in the global Family of Churches (with eighty or so million members). The three Formularies were written by the same team, led by Archbishop Cranmer.
If ever the Anglican Way is to come out of its present crisis and assume a stable form that is recognizably Anglican then it surely must take its original identity seriously into account.
Let us briefly note ways used in the present, especially in America, to dismiss the content of the Anglican Birth Certificate. And let us do so in order to learn how to re-create and preserve Anglican identity in a suitable form for today and tomorrow.
1. Goodbye to The Book of Common Prayer
The ECUSA way was to create a book of varied services with varied doctrines and mischievously call it The BCP, 1979. So Episcopalians of all kinds engage in corporate denial of the truth in using it, and meanwhile the real BCP (editions 1789-1928) is sent to the archives (though OUP still prints it!).
The usual (western) Anglican method is to create “A Book of Alternative Services” of one kind or another, and then make this for all practical purposes the Formulary, while retaining the real BCP in the canon law.
A method used by some Anglo-Catholics is to use The Anglican Missal or another of like kind, wherein the Reformed Catholic Faith of the Anglican Way is changed into a pale copy of Tridentine Catholicism. In contrast, in England the modern Roman Missal is used in some Forward in Faith parishes instead of an Anglican rite.
2. Goodbye to The Form and Manner of Making Deacons…Priests…and Bishops
The ECUSA way was to create new services for ordination and put them into its (so-called) BCP, 1979. Thus women’s ordination and changed emphases in the doctrine of ordination are incorporated as part of the new Formulary of 1979.
The usual (western) Anglican method is to place ordination services within “A Book of Alternative Services” and then treat them as if they were the real thing, even though canon law points to the classic and historic Ordinal as the Formulary.
A method used by some Anglo-Catholic Continuing Anglican groups is to use the words of the traditional Anglican text but to add to it elaborate ceremonial taken from the Tridentine Rite so as by this to change the doctrine of the priesthood into one that is more like that of Rome.
3. Goodbye to The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion
The ECUSA way was to send this statement of Reformed Catholicism off to the archives as historical documents without any role as Formulary after 1979.
The usual (western) Anglican method is to claim that the Articles were probably good and right for their time but do not have much relevance now. So they are accepted as right for their time of origin and useful as an indication as to where the Church of England once stood.
A common Anglo-Catholic way is to reject them as “Protestant” – as apparently in The St Louis Affirmation of Faith of 1977.
Conclusion
To reject the Formularies is effectively to deny the content of the Birth Certificate of the Anglican Way. It is to create something new and different whether that be (as with ECUSA) a radically progressive religion or (as with some full-blooded Anglo-Catholics) a pale imitation of Roman Catholicism as it was before, or even as it is, after Vatican II.
To recover meaningful identity Anglicans of all kinds need to move definitely towards the Formularies, to engage with them, in worship, doctrine and discipline so that the Anglican Way is identifiable and has an identity. That is, it is like a sold wheel with a common hub, with spokes going out from it to the fixed perimeter. Right now too many spokes go on and through the perimeter into a kind on ecumenical or evangelical-charismatic or Roman no-man’s land and the Anglican Way is without clear identity!
If the classic Formularies are not clearly present in the proposed Anglican Covenant (by which all member Churches will be bound in bonds of peace and truth) then there is little hope for a common identity for the present, disordered Anglican Communion of Churches.
(see further The Anglican Formularies and Holy Scripture, available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com )
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Anglican Identity and the Anglican Birth Certificate
Everyone recognizes the importance of possessing a birth certificate. By it one knows one’s identity in terms of origins and by it one is able to get such things as a passport and a driving license. In fact one regularly needs one’s birth certificate throughout life in order to establish and maintain one’s identity.
On the birth certificate of the Church of England (and thus of the Anglican Way) are clearly stated its parentage, and the place and time of birth. The mother was Ecclesia Anglicana, the medieval Latin-based Church, loyal to the Papacy in Rome, and the father was the Word of God written, God speaking in and through Holy Scripture in its original languages. The place of birth was London and the year was 1549. The theological ethnicity was Reformed Catholic (= Evangelical Catholic), expressed in and by the original Formularies—The BCP, The Ordinal and The Articles of Religion.
In the present crisis of identity which is seriously rocking the global Anglican Family of Churches, one thing ought to be clear to all leaders. No real progress will be made in establishing a clear identity for a future, renewed (and perhaps reduced) “Anglican Communion of Churches” without taking note of the Anglican birth certificate. One of the weaknesses of the draft “Anglican Covenant” provided in The Windsor Report (2004)—a document that seems to have become as important as the Bible recently in Anglican debate—is that there is no clear recognition of the Formularies and thus of the theological, spiritual and moral ethnicity of the people of the Anglican Way.
Of course, all reasonable people recognize that there has been growth in Anglican Identity since 1549—for example, a National Church praying in English has become a global Communion or Family of Churches worshipping in many languages; but, it is always important to know the content of the original identity in order to assess the quality of any growth since 1549. When there are proposed developments in worship or doctrine, this question (along with others) must be asked at the local and sometimes international level: Is the proposed innovation consistent with the type of Church that the Anglican Way actually is by its birth? If it is not, then to proceed with the innovation has the effect of seeking to change the very content of the birth certificate and thus modifying identity.
Then there are many examples throughout Anglican history of honest people who came to recognize that they had grown away from the basic liturgy, doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Way—be it in a Catholic, Evangelical, Charismatic, progressive Liberal or other direction—and thus they departed to find a spiritual home in a church more suited to their theological taste. Of these, the departure of John Henry Newman to the Roman Catholic Church in 1845 is a well-known example. Regrettably others stayed and sought to impose their views on others and to change the facts of the birth certificate.
Let us be honest. If any parish, diocese or province in the Anglican Way totally forgets, denies or trashes its birth certificate and seeks to take on a new identity then, although it may call itself “Episcopal” or “Anglican,” it has effectively left the Anglican Way and has created a new birth certificate and identity. Much of the confusion about Anglican Identity in the last twenty to thirty years has arisen through neglect or denial of the information on the Anglican Birth Certificate, especially by Churches in the West. For example, The Episcopal Church as an institution trashed its birth certificate in 1976-1979, when it sent the Formularies to the archives. On its new certificate the mother is the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. and the father is the union of the radical liberation, human rights and therapeutic movements of the 1960s-1970s. Its Formulary is the 1979 Prayer Book, as that is interpreted by the progressive liberal elite. Regrettably, it took the global Anglican Family a long time to recognize by its public behavior that a new birth certificate had been issued for The Episcopal Church!
Certainly the recently announced “Design Group for the Anglican Covenant,” headed by Archbishop Drexel Gomez, will need to make sure that the original Birth Certificate is a solid part of the Covenant which will bind the Anglican Communion of Churches together in biblical orthodoxy. Then, also, the Lambeth Conference of 2008 will need to insist that the Certificate is there in the clearest of language.
If the Prayer Book Societies of England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia have a common and global vocation it is to do all they can to ensure that the Birth Certificate is clearly an essential part of the Anglican Covenant. Indeed, not only the Prayer Book Societies but all faithful Anglicans need to be vigilant in this manner. The identity of the Anglican Way needs to become clear once again and it will take a lot of work to ensure that this actually happens.
I close with a Prayer:
Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and through him our Father, we beseech thee, the God of all mercies, to have pity upon the whole Anglican family of churches around the world. Purify and sanctify it that it may grow in fellowship and communion, in maturity and in membership. Illuminate it that it may rightly understand thy holy Word and inspire it that they may obey thy will. Guide it safely through the present crisis of identity so that it will everywhere be eager to pursue truth and unity in the Spirit and in the bonds of peace. Help it always to remember its origins and vocation. Grant that this family of churches will actually be a genuine communion of churches, bound together in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ, desirous to join thee in thy mission to the world for the salvation of mankind. This we ask humbly in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son and our Lord. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
On the birth certificate of the Church of England (and thus of the Anglican Way) are clearly stated its parentage, and the place and time of birth. The mother was Ecclesia Anglicana, the medieval Latin-based Church, loyal to the Papacy in Rome, and the father was the Word of God written, God speaking in and through Holy Scripture in its original languages. The place of birth was London and the year was 1549. The theological ethnicity was Reformed Catholic (= Evangelical Catholic), expressed in and by the original Formularies—The BCP, The Ordinal and The Articles of Religion.
In the present crisis of identity which is seriously rocking the global Anglican Family of Churches, one thing ought to be clear to all leaders. No real progress will be made in establishing a clear identity for a future, renewed (and perhaps reduced) “Anglican Communion of Churches” without taking note of the Anglican birth certificate. One of the weaknesses of the draft “Anglican Covenant” provided in The Windsor Report (2004)—a document that seems to have become as important as the Bible recently in Anglican debate—is that there is no clear recognition of the Formularies and thus of the theological, spiritual and moral ethnicity of the people of the Anglican Way.
Of course, all reasonable people recognize that there has been growth in Anglican Identity since 1549—for example, a National Church praying in English has become a global Communion or Family of Churches worshipping in many languages; but, it is always important to know the content of the original identity in order to assess the quality of any growth since 1549. When there are proposed developments in worship or doctrine, this question (along with others) must be asked at the local and sometimes international level: Is the proposed innovation consistent with the type of Church that the Anglican Way actually is by its birth? If it is not, then to proceed with the innovation has the effect of seeking to change the very content of the birth certificate and thus modifying identity.
Then there are many examples throughout Anglican history of honest people who came to recognize that they had grown away from the basic liturgy, doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Way—be it in a Catholic, Evangelical, Charismatic, progressive Liberal or other direction—and thus they departed to find a spiritual home in a church more suited to their theological taste. Of these, the departure of John Henry Newman to the Roman Catholic Church in 1845 is a well-known example. Regrettably others stayed and sought to impose their views on others and to change the facts of the birth certificate.
Let us be honest. If any parish, diocese or province in the Anglican Way totally forgets, denies or trashes its birth certificate and seeks to take on a new identity then, although it may call itself “Episcopal” or “Anglican,” it has effectively left the Anglican Way and has created a new birth certificate and identity. Much of the confusion about Anglican Identity in the last twenty to thirty years has arisen through neglect or denial of the information on the Anglican Birth Certificate, especially by Churches in the West. For example, The Episcopal Church as an institution trashed its birth certificate in 1976-1979, when it sent the Formularies to the archives. On its new certificate the mother is the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. and the father is the union of the radical liberation, human rights and therapeutic movements of the 1960s-1970s. Its Formulary is the 1979 Prayer Book, as that is interpreted by the progressive liberal elite. Regrettably, it took the global Anglican Family a long time to recognize by its public behavior that a new birth certificate had been issued for The Episcopal Church!
Certainly the recently announced “Design Group for the Anglican Covenant,” headed by Archbishop Drexel Gomez, will need to make sure that the original Birth Certificate is a solid part of the Covenant which will bind the Anglican Communion of Churches together in biblical orthodoxy. Then, also, the Lambeth Conference of 2008 will need to insist that the Certificate is there in the clearest of language.
If the Prayer Book Societies of England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia have a common and global vocation it is to do all they can to ensure that the Birth Certificate is clearly an essential part of the Anglican Covenant. Indeed, not only the Prayer Book Societies but all faithful Anglicans need to be vigilant in this manner. The identity of the Anglican Way needs to become clear once again and it will take a lot of work to ensure that this actually happens.
I close with a Prayer:
Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and through him our Father, we beseech thee, the God of all mercies, to have pity upon the whole Anglican family of churches around the world. Purify and sanctify it that it may grow in fellowship and communion, in maturity and in membership. Illuminate it that it may rightly understand thy holy Word and inspire it that they may obey thy will. Guide it safely through the present crisis of identity so that it will everywhere be eager to pursue truth and unity in the Spirit and in the bonds of peace. Help it always to remember its origins and vocation. Grant that this family of churches will actually be a genuine communion of churches, bound together in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ, desirous to join thee in thy mission to the world for the salvation of mankind. This we ask humbly in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son and our Lord. Amen.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Monday, October 09, 2006
The unique vocation of the local church – then (A.D. 60) and now
A message from the Epistle to the Ephesians to Anglicans in the light of The Windsor Report
Imagine a group of people meeting together in a large house or a meeting place in the ancient city of Ephesus, the third largest city in the Roman Empire, with a population of around 200,000. See the group as made up of both men and women and including Jews, Gentiles, slaves, and citizens of the Roman Empire. And amazingly they all seem to be mingling and relating as equals as they greet one another in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Listen to them singing psalms together and praying to God in the Name of Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah and Savior of the world.
Keep on listening as one whom they call a presbyter and/or pastor is reading out aloud a Letter sent to this fairly new and small congregation by the apostle Paul, who has written it to them—and probably to other local churches—from prison in the early 60s. Allow yourself to be astounded by what the apostle states is the vocation of this congregation in the will of God the Father.
I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (4:1-6)
We ask: What is the vocation given to this people by God in this pagan city where they live and assemble as a congregation of Jesus Christ?
Their vocation is to be a truly unified people, who are joined together in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Holy Spirit, who comes from the Father bringing the graces, gifts and virtues of the exalted Lord Jesus. We learn that their genuine unity in sincere fellowship, that is so crucially important, is only possible by the exercise of the virtues which were seen in the life and ministry of Jesus and which the Spirit makes available to those who are “in Christ.” (In passing we note that these virtues would not be prized or commended at all by the learned professors of ethics in Asia Minor or Greece at that time. They would be seen as signs of weakness.)
“Humility” is the opposite of pride and haughtiness of spirit; “meekness” is the opposite of self assertion and self justification; and “patience” is long-suffering, the capacity to accept delay, trouble, tribulation or suffering with becoming angry or upset. To these virtues is added that of “love,” the determination and readiness always to do for others what is truly for their good. “Bearing with one another…” suggests that St Paul assumes that there are and will be frictions and strains and differences in this congregation (for after all he understands the presence of sin within even the baptized believer – see Romans 1-8), and thus each and all need to work hard at exercising the Christian virtues. In fact, all need to have a blazing zeal, a profound eagerness, for true unity in Christ by his Spirit—a unity that is not only “in spirit and in truth” but is also really reflected in outward behavior, activity and signs. That is, a unity which is bound together by the virtue of peace (which is not merely freedom from divisions and strife but is the presence of wholeness).
The sevenfold formula—one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father—relates the unity of the local church to the unity of the whole catholic Church and to the unity of God himself. The vocation of the mixed congregation in Ephesus to be one in faith, hope and love, and at peace, which the apostle so passionately believes in and asks for, is integrated by him into the purposes of God for the whole creation, visible and invisible.
This takes us back to “the calling” to which the congregation has been called and was described in that part of the Letter read before we began to listen. This calling is not to be united in fellowship, worship and witness, and without internal divisions, simply because this is good in itself and provides less headaches for local leaders, visiting apostles and evangelists. No, it is (as Ephesians 1-3 make clear) the amazing, hard to believe, vocation of this church to be a part of God the Father’s working out and fulfilling of his grand and vast design for ultimate unity through, in and by Jesus Christ, of the whole created order. This people in this pagan city is called in their unity in the Spirit not only to prefigure the ultimate unity of everything in Christ but also to be its inception. Surely this is a unique privilege and amazing vocation!
The place which the Father has assigned to this congregation is within, and is a part of, his plan of the ages—“according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (1:10). To serve God in his plan requires that this local church, and every local church, reflect now that unity in Christ by the Spirit which is the perfect will of God. That which the Father through his Incarnate Son the Lord Jesus Christ shall bring to fullness of reality at the End time, he now requires be made visible in each local church through the real and true unity of all members as the one body of Christ, living by the Christian virtues as guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit. This is the true vocation of the local church and out of it flow worship, mission, teaching, evangelization and discipline that are to the praise of the Holy Trinity.
In this age and sinful world, this ecclesial vocation is completely and totally opposed by “the world, the flesh [human nature in its sinful state] and the devil.” This is why Paul ends his Letter in this way:
Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might…Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one, and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. (6:10-18)
The context in which the local church is to become in practice what it is called to be by God the Father is one of constant battle, but one that the Lord Jesus has already successfully engaged in and been victorious. And he is around to guide and strength now.
One thing we learn from this is that unity in Christ by the Spirit is not an option and not secondary to having orthodoxy in propositional form. It is a necessary quality of the body of Christ, the household of God the Father, and the temple of the Holy Spirit.
October 9, 2006
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Imagine a group of people meeting together in a large house or a meeting place in the ancient city of Ephesus, the third largest city in the Roman Empire, with a population of around 200,000. See the group as made up of both men and women and including Jews, Gentiles, slaves, and citizens of the Roman Empire. And amazingly they all seem to be mingling and relating as equals as they greet one another in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Listen to them singing psalms together and praying to God in the Name of Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah and Savior of the world.
Keep on listening as one whom they call a presbyter and/or pastor is reading out aloud a Letter sent to this fairly new and small congregation by the apostle Paul, who has written it to them—and probably to other local churches—from prison in the early 60s. Allow yourself to be astounded by what the apostle states is the vocation of this congregation in the will of God the Father.
I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (4:1-6)
We ask: What is the vocation given to this people by God in this pagan city where they live and assemble as a congregation of Jesus Christ?
Their vocation is to be a truly unified people, who are joined together in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Holy Spirit, who comes from the Father bringing the graces, gifts and virtues of the exalted Lord Jesus. We learn that their genuine unity in sincere fellowship, that is so crucially important, is only possible by the exercise of the virtues which were seen in the life and ministry of Jesus and which the Spirit makes available to those who are “in Christ.” (In passing we note that these virtues would not be prized or commended at all by the learned professors of ethics in Asia Minor or Greece at that time. They would be seen as signs of weakness.)
“Humility” is the opposite of pride and haughtiness of spirit; “meekness” is the opposite of self assertion and self justification; and “patience” is long-suffering, the capacity to accept delay, trouble, tribulation or suffering with becoming angry or upset. To these virtues is added that of “love,” the determination and readiness always to do for others what is truly for their good. “Bearing with one another…” suggests that St Paul assumes that there are and will be frictions and strains and differences in this congregation (for after all he understands the presence of sin within even the baptized believer – see Romans 1-8), and thus each and all need to work hard at exercising the Christian virtues. In fact, all need to have a blazing zeal, a profound eagerness, for true unity in Christ by his Spirit—a unity that is not only “in spirit and in truth” but is also really reflected in outward behavior, activity and signs. That is, a unity which is bound together by the virtue of peace (which is not merely freedom from divisions and strife but is the presence of wholeness).
The sevenfold formula—one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father—relates the unity of the local church to the unity of the whole catholic Church and to the unity of God himself. The vocation of the mixed congregation in Ephesus to be one in faith, hope and love, and at peace, which the apostle so passionately believes in and asks for, is integrated by him into the purposes of God for the whole creation, visible and invisible.
This takes us back to “the calling” to which the congregation has been called and was described in that part of the Letter read before we began to listen. This calling is not to be united in fellowship, worship and witness, and without internal divisions, simply because this is good in itself and provides less headaches for local leaders, visiting apostles and evangelists. No, it is (as Ephesians 1-3 make clear) the amazing, hard to believe, vocation of this church to be a part of God the Father’s working out and fulfilling of his grand and vast design for ultimate unity through, in and by Jesus Christ, of the whole created order. This people in this pagan city is called in their unity in the Spirit not only to prefigure the ultimate unity of everything in Christ but also to be its inception. Surely this is a unique privilege and amazing vocation!
The place which the Father has assigned to this congregation is within, and is a part of, his plan of the ages—“according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (1:10). To serve God in his plan requires that this local church, and every local church, reflect now that unity in Christ by the Spirit which is the perfect will of God. That which the Father through his Incarnate Son the Lord Jesus Christ shall bring to fullness of reality at the End time, he now requires be made visible in each local church through the real and true unity of all members as the one body of Christ, living by the Christian virtues as guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit. This is the true vocation of the local church and out of it flow worship, mission, teaching, evangelization and discipline that are to the praise of the Holy Trinity.
In this age and sinful world, this ecclesial vocation is completely and totally opposed by “the world, the flesh [human nature in its sinful state] and the devil.” This is why Paul ends his Letter in this way:
Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might…Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one, and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. (6:10-18)
The context in which the local church is to become in practice what it is called to be by God the Father is one of constant battle, but one that the Lord Jesus has already successfully engaged in and been victorious. And he is around to guide and strength now.
One thing we learn from this is that unity in Christ by the Spirit is not an option and not secondary to having orthodoxy in propositional form. It is a necessary quality of the body of Christ, the household of God the Father, and the temple of the Holy Spirit.
October 9, 2006
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The Articles of Religion – comments by Professor G. W. H. Lampe
The University of Cambridge Professor of Divinity, G.W.H. Lampe, gave a lecture in 1964 in Oxford on The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. In this lecture he advocated the following position for the Church of England (where, it needs to be remembered, subscription to them was then required both at ordination and when entering a pastoral or teaching ministry):
To retain them as a highly important historical document which ought to be brought to the notice and consideration of every Churchman, and which the clergy in particular, ought to study carefully, but cease to treat them as an official exposition of the doctrinal position of the Church of England at the present time and accordingly, neither demand subscription to them, nor substitute any new “articles” for the.
Notice here that he uses the strong form of the verb implying moral duty, “ought to be brought,” and that he advocates careful study of The Articles. So, although there should be no subscription required, he believes that the clergy ought to know the content of The Articles. (This contrasts with those who dismiss The Articles as either irrelevant or “Protestant” and who seem not to read, let alone, study them carefully!)
From his own study of The Articles, Professor Lampe has the following to say about their purpose:
The real purpose of The Articles….is to identify the Church of England. They therefore serve, first, to explain the theological reason for the existence of the Church of England as a particular national Church in a divided Christendom; to set out, and to justify, its distinctive position as one of the Churches of the Reformation, and hence to clarify the main issues on which it took a stand in opposition to what it held to be the errors of others. Hence their statements are often of a negative kind. Many of them are concerned to deny error; and in so doing they often naturally appear to adopt a defensive attitude, whether on behalf of the sufficiency of the Ordinal, or against the jurisdiction of the Pope, or in support of the retention in the Church of Infant Baptism. They are designed to defend the belief of the Church of England against opponents on two fronts: not indeed, as is sometimes alleged, to maintain a via media between Rome and Geneva…; the opposing camps are rather Rome, on the one hand, and the Anabaptist teaching on the other. The Articles indicate where, in the burning questions of the sixteenth century, our Church stood in relation to the answers given by these two chief opponents….
It is sometimes said that Articles ought to be interpreted in the light of the Prayer Book [BCP, 1662]. Historically speaking this is certainly wrong. The liturgy of the Church does indeed express the Church’s doctrinal position in a general way, but it is not the purpose of a service-book to set out teaching directly and systematically… The Articles provide the doctrinal framework within which the Prayer Book stands and with reference to which it is meant to be interpreted….
It is worth remarking that The Articles presuppose the existence of fuller statements about our Church’s teaching on faith and practice. The Homilies are generally commended by Article 35 as containing “a godly and wholesome doctrine,” and they are to be read by the ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understood by the people. The highly important Article 11 on Justification has recourse to the Homilies as a source of fuller authoritative teaching…
And Professor Lampe goes on to stay that “if a person cannot assent to these Articles as being agreeable to the Word of God as this was best understood at the time of their compilation, and so by implication reject the opposing contemporary claims of Trent or of the Anabaptists, he cannot be recognized as standing within the Anglican tradition.” This statement is surely worth pondering.
In the present urgent and global search for “identity” by Anglicans – caused by the crisis brought to the Anglican Family of Churches by the recent innovations of the North American members – the voice of Professor Lampe from forty years ago is surely joined by many others in calling for the serious study of the Anglican Formularies (all printed in the pew editions of the BCP 1662) – not least a majority of the Primates of the Anglican Communion of Churches.
[ See further the important, new edition of The Homilies edited by Ian Robinson; and the essay/booklet of 64pp., The Anglican Formularies and Holy Scripture, by Peter Toon; both now available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com for the USA and www.edgewaysbooks.com for the UK and British Commonwealth (except Canada). Professor Lampe’s lecture is found in The Articles of the Church of England, edited by H.E.W. Turner, London, 1964.]
Peter Toon October 3, 2006
To retain them as a highly important historical document which ought to be brought to the notice and consideration of every Churchman, and which the clergy in particular, ought to study carefully, but cease to treat them as an official exposition of the doctrinal position of the Church of England at the present time and accordingly, neither demand subscription to them, nor substitute any new “articles” for the.
Notice here that he uses the strong form of the verb implying moral duty, “ought to be brought,” and that he advocates careful study of The Articles. So, although there should be no subscription required, he believes that the clergy ought to know the content of The Articles. (This contrasts with those who dismiss The Articles as either irrelevant or “Protestant” and who seem not to read, let alone, study them carefully!)
From his own study of The Articles, Professor Lampe has the following to say about their purpose:
The real purpose of The Articles….is to identify the Church of England. They therefore serve, first, to explain the theological reason for the existence of the Church of England as a particular national Church in a divided Christendom; to set out, and to justify, its distinctive position as one of the Churches of the Reformation, and hence to clarify the main issues on which it took a stand in opposition to what it held to be the errors of others. Hence their statements are often of a negative kind. Many of them are concerned to deny error; and in so doing they often naturally appear to adopt a defensive attitude, whether on behalf of the sufficiency of the Ordinal, or against the jurisdiction of the Pope, or in support of the retention in the Church of Infant Baptism. They are designed to defend the belief of the Church of England against opponents on two fronts: not indeed, as is sometimes alleged, to maintain a via media between Rome and Geneva…; the opposing camps are rather Rome, on the one hand, and the Anabaptist teaching on the other. The Articles indicate where, in the burning questions of the sixteenth century, our Church stood in relation to the answers given by these two chief opponents….
It is sometimes said that Articles ought to be interpreted in the light of the Prayer Book [BCP, 1662]. Historically speaking this is certainly wrong. The liturgy of the Church does indeed express the Church’s doctrinal position in a general way, but it is not the purpose of a service-book to set out teaching directly and systematically… The Articles provide the doctrinal framework within which the Prayer Book stands and with reference to which it is meant to be interpreted….
It is worth remarking that The Articles presuppose the existence of fuller statements about our Church’s teaching on faith and practice. The Homilies are generally commended by Article 35 as containing “a godly and wholesome doctrine,” and they are to be read by the ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understood by the people. The highly important Article 11 on Justification has recourse to the Homilies as a source of fuller authoritative teaching…
And Professor Lampe goes on to stay that “if a person cannot assent to these Articles as being agreeable to the Word of God as this was best understood at the time of their compilation, and so by implication reject the opposing contemporary claims of Trent or of the Anabaptists, he cannot be recognized as standing within the Anglican tradition.” This statement is surely worth pondering.
In the present urgent and global search for “identity” by Anglicans – caused by the crisis brought to the Anglican Family of Churches by the recent innovations of the North American members – the voice of Professor Lampe from forty years ago is surely joined by many others in calling for the serious study of the Anglican Formularies (all printed in the pew editions of the BCP 1662) – not least a majority of the Primates of the Anglican Communion of Churches.
[ See further the important, new edition of The Homilies edited by Ian Robinson; and the essay/booklet of 64pp., The Anglican Formularies and Holy Scripture, by Peter Toon; both now available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com for the USA and www.edgewaysbooks.com for the UK and British Commonwealth (except Canada). Professor Lampe’s lecture is found in The Articles of the Church of England, edited by H.E.W. Turner, London, 1964.]
Peter Toon October 3, 2006
Prevenient Grace
The Episcopal Church has practically rejected and even denied prevenient Grace - now is the time for all of its people to accept it in faith and practice!
A Meditation arising from reading The Windsor Report and the BCP
One sure thing that the Church as a Body and baptized Christians individually ought to desire is this: not to be stepping ahead of the footsteps of God in the walk of faith. Or, put positively, being sure that God is before us preparing the way for us, because we are seeking to walk in his will.
As a Body The Episcopal Church – in the judgment of its extended Family (The Anglican Communion of Churches) – has been walking alone, and not in the way of the Lord. According to The Windsor Report of 2004 (itself commended by the leadership of the whole Communion), The Episcopal Church is suffering from moral and spiritual sickness (paragraphs 22-30) and this is why it is not walking in the ways of the Lord and in the footsteps of Christ the Lord. And, we may say, this sickness is a general one, including all within it, for in one Body each and every part is affected for ill in some way or another.
One petition that is, therefore, most appropriate – indeed urgent – for Episcopalians to pray is that for prevenient/preventing grace. Here “prevent” does not mean “to hinder” or “cause not to happen” ; but, according to the Latin verb from which it comes, to anticipate, to be beforehand with and to forestall (prae = before; venire = to come). For had God gone before and ahead of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, especially in the period of the 1970s when, walking alone, it changed its whole foundation, then it would not be in the crisis and sickness it is experiencing now. Looking back, we may dare to say that God did not go ahead to prepare the way through the 1970s into the 1980s because the Church itself decided in the late 1960s that it wanted to walk apart from the will of the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, liturgy and morality. It forsook the covenant with the Lord to pursue an agenda it gained from the secular revolution of the times.
Three times in the Collects of The Book of Common Prayer (England 1662,) and twice in the American edition of 1928 and Canadian of 1962, Anglicans pray to God using the verb “to prevent.”
Almighty God, who through thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ hast overcome death, and opened unto us the gate of everlasting life: We humbly beseech thee, that as by thy special grace preventing us thou dost put into our minds good desires, so by thy continual help we may bring the same to good effect; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen. [England & USA]
LORD, we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen [Trinity XVII] [England, USA and Canada]
Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works, begun continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy Name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. [Fourth Collect at end of The Order for Holy Communion] [USA & Canada]
Only one of these was put into the 1979 Prayer Book and that was the second, where the verb “prevent” was changed to “precede” for Proper 23.
If we examine these collects we can see that what they presume is this: that because of our basic sinfulness and lack of spiritual and moral maturity – not to mention our rebellious wills and ungodly minds – we need the intervention of God who, anticipating that we shall surely make mistakes on our own, both places good and right intentions in our hearts, and also goes ahead of us in his providence to prepare the way for us to go, so that we actually can and do walk where he will have us go. Certainly, The Episcopal Church and all its members, if they have any wisdom at all, ought to return to walking after the LORD, placing their feet where his have left their marks. They need to pray, “Prevent us, O Lord….”
Visit www.anglicansatprayer.org and for a description of the sickness of The Episcopal Church take a look at my Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004, available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com
There is surely also a message from these collects to the Continuing Anglican Churches who, while confessing the same faith, using the same traditional Prayer Book, and actually praying the collects printed above, manage to walk apart and not together – often with a certain amount of hostility. They also have to face the scandal of their illness (divisions) and the root of it/them is that they are not receiving a sufficient supply from heaven of prevenient grace and are walking in their own paths, not paying attention to the footsteps of the Lord.
None of us can do without prevenient grace!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
A Meditation arising from reading The Windsor Report and the BCP
One sure thing that the Church as a Body and baptized Christians individually ought to desire is this: not to be stepping ahead of the footsteps of God in the walk of faith. Or, put positively, being sure that God is before us preparing the way for us, because we are seeking to walk in his will.
As a Body The Episcopal Church – in the judgment of its extended Family (The Anglican Communion of Churches) – has been walking alone, and not in the way of the Lord. According to The Windsor Report of 2004 (itself commended by the leadership of the whole Communion), The Episcopal Church is suffering from moral and spiritual sickness (paragraphs 22-30) and this is why it is not walking in the ways of the Lord and in the footsteps of Christ the Lord. And, we may say, this sickness is a general one, including all within it, for in one Body each and every part is affected for ill in some way or another.
One petition that is, therefore, most appropriate – indeed urgent – for Episcopalians to pray is that for prevenient/preventing grace. Here “prevent” does not mean “to hinder” or “cause not to happen” ; but, according to the Latin verb from which it comes, to anticipate, to be beforehand with and to forestall (prae = before; venire = to come). For had God gone before and ahead of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, especially in the period of the 1970s when, walking alone, it changed its whole foundation, then it would not be in the crisis and sickness it is experiencing now. Looking back, we may dare to say that God did not go ahead to prepare the way through the 1970s into the 1980s because the Church itself decided in the late 1960s that it wanted to walk apart from the will of the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, liturgy and morality. It forsook the covenant with the Lord to pursue an agenda it gained from the secular revolution of the times.
Three times in the Collects of The Book of Common Prayer (England 1662,) and twice in the American edition of 1928 and Canadian of 1962, Anglicans pray to God using the verb “to prevent.”
Almighty God, who through thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ hast overcome death, and opened unto us the gate of everlasting life: We humbly beseech thee, that as by thy special grace preventing us thou dost put into our minds good desires, so by thy continual help we may bring the same to good effect; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen. [England & USA]
LORD, we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen [Trinity XVII] [England, USA and Canada]
Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works, begun continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy Name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. [Fourth Collect at end of The Order for Holy Communion] [USA & Canada]
Only one of these was put into the 1979 Prayer Book and that was the second, where the verb “prevent” was changed to “precede” for Proper 23.
If we examine these collects we can see that what they presume is this: that because of our basic sinfulness and lack of spiritual and moral maturity – not to mention our rebellious wills and ungodly minds – we need the intervention of God who, anticipating that we shall surely make mistakes on our own, both places good and right intentions in our hearts, and also goes ahead of us in his providence to prepare the way for us to go, so that we actually can and do walk where he will have us go. Certainly, The Episcopal Church and all its members, if they have any wisdom at all, ought to return to walking after the LORD, placing their feet where his have left their marks. They need to pray, “Prevent us, O Lord….”
Visit www.anglicansatprayer.org and for a description of the sickness of The Episcopal Church take a look at my Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004, available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com
There is surely also a message from these collects to the Continuing Anglican Churches who, while confessing the same faith, using the same traditional Prayer Book, and actually praying the collects printed above, manage to walk apart and not together – often with a certain amount of hostility. They also have to face the scandal of their illness (divisions) and the root of it/them is that they are not receiving a sufficient supply from heaven of prevenient grace and are walking in their own paths, not paying attention to the footsteps of the Lord.
None of us can do without prevenient grace!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
80th anniversary Choral Evensong BBC Wed Oct 11
The BBC Radio 3's Choral Evensong broadcasts are on the internet at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/choralevensong/pip/mi0rz/
Choral Evensong
80th anniversary
Wednesday 11 October 2006 16:00-17:00 (Radio 3)
Live from Westminster Abbey, to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the first broadcast of Choral Evensong.
Duration:
1 hour
Playlist:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/choralevensong/pip/mi0rz/
Choral Evensong
80th anniversary
Wednesday 11 October 2006 16:00-17:00 (Radio 3)
Live from Westminster Abbey, to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the first broadcast of Choral Evensong.
Duration:
1 hour
Playlist:
- Introit: O God, thou art my God (Purcell)
- Responses: Smith
- Psalms: 72, 19 (Atkins, Turle)
- First Lesson: Jeremiah 1 vv4-10
- Canticles: Stanford in A
- Second Lesson: Romans 10 vv11-18
- Anthem: The Twelve (Walton)
- Hymn: Christ is our cornerstone (Harewood)
- Organ Voluntary: Toccata (Francis Pott)
- Organist and Master of the Choristers: James O'Donnell
- Sub-Organist: Robert Quinney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)