Loyalty --- is it a good thing for ECUSA clergy & laity?

A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection.
Feelings of allegiance.
The act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a
course of action.

Loyalty is a key concept in politics and in sport, and it is becoming so in the ECUSA. Bishops are calling for loyalty to the institution, as thousands think of leaving or calling for alternative Episcopal oversight. Is loyalty a virtue? Is it a good thing? How should the faithful respond to such calls.

A long time ago in a BBC broadcast the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell said: “Loyalty is always evil.” It was an exaggeration of course, but it made an important, even profound, point provocatively and clearly.

If any action, attachment or allegiance is defended on the ground of loyalty alone, then loyalty here may be said to be evil. Further, such a defense has no rational basis to it. To say, “I do this out of loyalty to my party [my leader, my denomination]” is both irrational and immoral unless it can be said that my party [or my leader or my denomination] is acting for the true good of mankind and the glory of God.

Loyalty in and of itself is never a moral basis for action. But where the cause or the leader of the institution is good, or seeking genuinely to be good, then loyalty may be said to be virtuous. But this is because of the good involved, not because of the power of the allegiance or attachment that is the loyalty.

Thus ECUSA priests and laity are not required to be loyal to the ECUSA if this Church is, in the judgment of the wise, disobeying the Lord of the Church. Unless ECUSA is doing what is good or at least intending and trying to do what is right and good, loyalty to this institution is mis-placed. Loyalty has to be to the Gospel, to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to God the Father, and if the ECUSA is seeking to put These first and uppermost in its corporate life and decisions then loyalty to the ECUSA can be virtuous.

Priests are being loyal to their ordinations when they recall their ordinations seriously, reverently and humbly and then seek to live and minister in the light and unction of them. This may mean rejecting or disobeying the institution to which they currently belong and into which they moved when ordained – especially if that institution denies the very Faith which was the context of the ordination itself. It may mean seeking alternative episcopal oversight or it may mean leaving the institution for another wherein the pursuit of the Good is real.

Loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the Gospel of the Father concerning him, are virtuous for here loyalty is truly to the GOOD.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

Peter Toon’s AVAILABILITY

Friends,

For the last three months I have been assisting St Thomas’ Church, Houston as an interim rector. They are well on their way to selecting a new rector and they have in place the former associate rector, Doug Cadwallader, as the pastor until the arrival of a new rector. My services are no longer needed there as they know where they are going and are moving quickly.

Now I am back in Washington State, on the outskirts of Seattle by the mountains, and back at work on various writing tasks. I have been invited to assist at the famous St Luke’s Church in downtown Seattle as needed. But this means I am now free to accept invitations to speak or help out at other churches of an Episcopal or Anglican polity, either at weekends or mid-week around the USA or over the border in Canada.

I am ready and will be honored to preach on the Gospel or the theme of the day on Sundays and Holy Days, to lecture on themes from the BCP and Reformed Catholic traditions anytime, to represent the Prayer Book Society and explain its mission anytime, and generally be of service to the churches which want to be faithful to the Anglican Way.

My e mail addresses are petertoon@msn.com & thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com

Please do no hesitate to call me if you think I can help you with your work and cause.

I am keen to put together a book for the PBS on the theme HOW CONSERVATIVE LITURGICAL CHURCHES GROW (and do no divide when they grow!). I am looking for good stories and sound principles so that the PBS can share this information with others to encourage them.

Thanks.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Peter Toon

Politicization of the Gospel – is it only the progressives who do it!

A discussion starter and by no means the last word….

For a long time the main-line and old-line Churches have been familiar with a message that amounts to a reduction of the supernatural kingdom of God/heaven to an idealized, this-worldly utopia, reached through effective social, political and economic action. This kind of teaching comes in a variety of forms and seems always to lose the priority of the transcendent sovereign rule of God in order to gain an immanent sense of progress towards peace, justice and equality on earth. In this scheme, people are being saved for and into an earthly paradise rather than being brought graciously through an evil age and world into a supernatural and heavenly kingdom.

In this progressive, liberal message, there is no ultimate heaven or hell beyond and above this world, but there is a kind of heaven and hell on earth. Heaven on earth is realized when full human rights are in operation, when there is true equality of persons and genuine peace amongst peoples, and when there is justice for everyone and when poverty and squalor have been removed from the earth. Hell is the absence of peace and justice and the triumph of evil and misery.

Hints of this kind of theology are found in the “baptismal covenant” and in the “catechism” of the 1979 prayer book of the ECUSA, as well as in many World Council of Churches publications. Where such theology is found and dominates, then the Gospel of the Father concerning his Only Son and the salvation of human beings from their sin into the righteousness of God, is neglected, eclipsed or denied. Further, the Sacraments change their meaning and purpose (e.g., the Eucharist becomes a community meal open to all who aspire to justice and peace) and preaching becomes advocacy for a this-wordly cause. The obsession of the ECUSA in the last thirty years with a progressive message of justice, peace, equality and human rights provides a near perfect example of an intensely religious but secular form of commitment to a this-worldly salvation. The rights of homosexual persons in the church and society are but the latest of a long line of concerns for such justice in this church.

Not only the progressives but also the orthodox….

At the same time, some (but not all) of “the orthodox” in the Churches need to be aware that they too can and do often politicize the Gospel of the Father concerning his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. To state it symbolically, they place the US Flag in front of the Cross, or they insist on singing the National Anthem in close proximity to the Prayer for the Church [militant here on earth] in the Eucharist. In plain terms, and as examples, they think of Christ as if he were an American, they tend to understand the biblical concept and language of freedom (in Christ by the Holy Spirit) in terms of the freedom associated with the “liberty” of the American constitution and the American dream, and they are prone to identify Israeli policies in the Near East as just, right and biblical and those of the Palestinians as at best unacceptable.

They seem unable to separate the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ from their values of patriotism, nationalism, ethnicity, culture, class and even race. They cannot understand how a Christian can vote for a party other than the Republican, and they often support conservative forms of liturgy and piety, as well as doctrine and morals, because they see these as expressing or lending support to their social conservatism. Further, they seem unable to comprehend the possibility that the true Church of God, the Body of Christ, is to be in this world and for this world but yet not of this world (where “the world” includes the ethos, norms and culture of the USA!).

The Gospel

The offer of the Gospel and the gift of God therein is made to all peoples and all classes and races, and thus in Christ there are no divisions, for in Baptism and by regeneration all are equal before God the Father. The Gospel does not favor one political party over another or one culture above another. All parties and cultures are under the judgment of God and there are different degrees of “human good” in them but none of them is anywhere near an expression of the Gospel or the Kingdom of God. This age, with all its enlightenment and achievements is an evil age and this world is under the constant judgment of the Lord. Of course, Christians have to make judgments as to how they shall live whether it be in a democracy or in a dictatorship. Yet never are they to identify any human order with the kingdom or with the demands of the Gospel, for both the kingdom and the Gospel belong to that which is above and not of this world. This means that though they prefer this party to that and this program to that and this social policy to that, they are preferring that which is imperfect to that which is more so, since nowhere in this world is there perfection in God’s reckoning.

The Ten Commandments is not social conservatism for they begin with a strong word of Redemption; the Sermon on the Mount is not social conservatism for the Lord calls for radical behavior to obey his word; and the ethics of the apostle Paul call for major changes in the relation of social classes in the fellowship of the churches.

The Gospel is all about the new creation, the order of the kingdom of heaven/God, and what it promises is both above and future, even though aspects of what shall be are felt and known now by the elect – already but not yet! Thus the Gospel must not be closely identified with any social or cultural or economic program of the right or the left, even though the Church is called to show mercy and be the salt and light of the world. The Church is to be in the world and for the world (in mission, evangelization and social service) but not of the world (in identifying closely with political parties, cultures, norms, values etc.).

Certainly our political and social views should be informed by the Gospel and the teaching of the Kingdom of God. Informed by but not equated with, and always under the judgment of God.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

Church or World: or Both? For whom do we pray in the Eucharist/Mass/Order for Holy Communion?

Those who use a traditional edition of The Book of Common Prayer are familiar with the exhortation of the Minister, “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church [militant here on earth].” In both the English 1662 and the American 1928 editions, this Prayer comes after the Offertory and before the Confession of sins, and thus before the Prayer of Consecration of the Bread and Wine, but very hear to it.

However, in the first edition of The Book of Common Prayer of 1549, the content of the Prayer, following the example of the structure of the medieval Mass (the Sarum Rite), is set between the Sanctus [“Holy, holy, holy”] and the commemoration of the Institution of the Eucharist. So the prayer for the Church, as militant here on earth, expectant in the intermediate state and triumphant by grace in heaven, is actually enclosed within the Prayer of Consecration -- as it is also in the Scottish Communion Service of 1764 (which follows the structure within the old Eastern tradition).

The reason why the Prayer is for the Church and is either within or closely related to the Eucharistic/Consecration Prayer is that the Eucharist is not a public service of worship open to all comers. Rather it is for the baptized faithful, those who are in good standing in the church, and it is a being united to the Sacrifice of Christ, who is in glory in heaven, and also united to the Church expectant and triumphant. In early times, catechumens and those under discipline, were dismissed at the end of the Ministry of the Word (cf., the service of Ante-Communion in Anglican tradition) for they were not able to be worthy participants. Thus the Prayer is that offered for the Church by her Saviour and High Priest (see John 17) through and in His Body, and it is a Prayer not for the world but for His elect.

Regrettably in modern times, and in too many places, the Eucharist has been reduced to something like a spiritual fast food experience, and so both the glory and the orientation of this Heavenly Banquet are being or have been lost. Further, in modern Liturgies in the Anglican Communion (see e.g., the latest American, Canadian and English ones) the prayer is no longer in union with Christ the High Priest for his people, but it is begun with these words, “Let us pray for the Church and the World.” Also it is not any longer seen as the Prayer offered by the Priest, and he alone, but rather by one or more laity, since (in the modern understanding) it is not integrated into the Consecration Prayer and so is not a priestly action. And, it may be added that it is common now to invite all and sundry, “just as they are,” to the symbolical Meal.

Something very precious and very important for real devotion, piety and doctrine has been lost by the change in emphasis in modern Liturgies.

What about Prayer for the world? There is place and ample opportunity at the end of the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer; in personal Daily Prayers, in Church prayer meetings, and so on. There is a solemn duty for the Church (which is to be in the world and for the world but not of the world) to pray for the world and to pray fervently in the Name of Jesus. But the Eucharist is not the place for this form of praying.

The Eucharist is the uniting of the Church militant here on earth with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Church expectant and triumphant, and it is intensely focused upon the Lord Jesus and His Body, which is the Household of God. It is a heavenly service held here on earth!

This is why nationalism, and symbols thereof, are not appropriate in the Eucharist, even though some forms may be in services of Prayer and Thanksgiving.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

How to know whether a Minister or layman is truly committed to the historic English, Christian Form of Prayer

Up to the late 1960s and often well into the 70s, the LORD our God was addressed by virtually everyone in public prayer in divine worship, in extempore prayer at mid-week services, in family prayers and privately as “Thou.”

From the late 1960s Bible translations (e.g., NIV) and Liturgies appeared which addressed God as “You” and (in that revolutionary cultural era) people began to think that we should all address God as we address one another, as “You.” To do so was to be relevant and open to evangelism and mission. So-called “experts” told us that in using “You” we were really doing what was done in earlier times, for then people addressed each other as “Thou.”

However, since the whole of the English heritage of prayer and devotion (from the Middle Ages to the 1960s) is and remains in the “Thou-Thee” form, it has not been easy to lose this form altogether, even when big efforts have been made to do so. Many hymns do not easily change into the “You” form of address and the Lord’s Prayer still seems only right when it prays, “hallowed be Thy Name.”

In the late 1970s the Liturgical Commission of the Episcopal Church USA wanted a Prayer Book that was wholly “You”; but conservatism in the Church required that they include a section of “Thou” [Rite 1] prayer. However, a little later, the Prayer Book of the West Indies (in part modeled on the USA book of 1979) used only “You.” New liturgies of the Episcopal Church since 1979 have all been in the “You” mode.

So what we have today is a majority of clergy which believes that God should be addressed as “You” (in order to be relevant and meaningful) and this is their habitual way of speaking to God when they pray. However, they are prepared to sing hymns and use bits of ancient devotion and liturgy or anthems which still (to them or their congregations) sound best or right in the “Thou” form.

There are a few Ministers and laity left who still use “Thou” out of conviction and understanding for the whole of the services which they conduct and share in; and there are some churches which use only the traditional language in hymnody and public prayer.

How does one tell whether or not a Minister is wholly committed to the use of the historic, classic, English form and way of prayer? The answer is simple: He will address God devoutly as “Thou” not only when using a public liturgy and hymn book and reading ser prayers, but he will also address God as “Thou” when he says grace, when he visits the sick, when he is called upon to lead in prayer, and when he says his own prayers in the solitude of his heart. And he will be prepared to give not only a linguistic and grammatical justification, but a theological one as well! (See the book named below for details.)

Any Minister, who uses the traditional form in public prayer, and who then changes to the modern form on other occasions, is not really committed at all to the historic form of English prayer! Rather, he may be said to be not against it, but only partially for it, since when he is free to choose, he chooses to address God as “You.” Regrettably this seems to apply to most evangelical Episcopal and Anglican clergy in 2005.

[For a readable and serious study of the English language of prayer, see Peter Toon and Louis Tarsitano, Neither Archaic not Obsolete, 2003, available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from (UK) www.edgewaysbooks.com or call 1-800-727-1928]

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

Fire in the soul during Meditating, Musing & Praying.

A favorite text used the centuries ago to describe the experience of prayerful meditation before the Lord and his Word was:

“My heart was hot within me, and while I was thus musing the fire kindled: and at the last I spake with my tongue, ‘LORD let me know mine end…’” [Psalm 39:3, from The Book of Common Prayer, 1662, cf. the KJV]

This translation has a distinct relation to the Vulgate [Latin] version of the Psalm used in medieval and early modern Europe in thousands of monasteries, convents and churches.

Why did this particular text seem to describe the felt experience of those who (in what was called the lectio divina) spent time in quiet before the Lord to ponder and pray over what they had heard and read in the lectio continua [the continuous reading of the Bible and chanting of the Psalter] of the daily offices?

The answer to the question requires that we enter the internal description of what those seriously committed to daily meditation believed they were doing.

First of all, they placed themselves in the presence of God, confessed their sins and asked for grace and inspiration. Then from memory (perhaps assisted by a text) they recalled some particular Word of the Lord heard and read earlier. Using their powers of imagination, they pictured the original scene from which the Word came. At the same time with their reason and intellect they sought to understand it by approaching it from various angles and with differing questions. Then they sought by the truths of the Word of God to raise their affections – their desire, hope, love, and joy – towards God the Father through Jesus Christ. Here they often experienced the inner warmth, glow, of the witness of the Holy Spirit with their spirit. That is, the fire kindled as they mused and raised their souls towards God. And with the fire kindled and the heart warmed their will was directed aright and they were prepared to make resolutions and commitments to the Lord and engage in genuine prayer.

The underlying belief was this: the whole soul has been affected by the disease of sin and this is seen most clearly in the affections and the will, together with the imagination. Thus in meditation, the whole soul (memory, intellect, imagination, affections and will) is to be engaged; further, the raising of the affections has to proceed (for there to be the real possibility of engagement with God and his truth) from consideration of, and pondering over, the Word and Truth of God. To begin with the affections is, for most people, not wise for they can be as wild horses and not controllable! They need to informed and warmed by the Word of the Lord before directed to embrace the Lord.

“While I was thus musing [considering, reflecting and thinking about God’s revealed Word] the fire kindled” and I was alive before God, ready to converse with him!

[There is a major chapter on praying the psalms in the forthcoming, Worship without Dumbing-down. Knowing God through Liturgy, by Peter Toon. This is available from August 15, 2005 for $12.50 post paid from The Prayer Book Society, Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA.19128-0220; phone 1 800 727 1928; and from its website, www.anglicanmarketplace.com ]

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

True Liturgy, both impersonal and supra-personal because through, in and with Christ

(a discussion starter, from Peter Toon, adapted from a piece by F.P.Harton)

When the individual person takes his part in the celebration of the divine mysteries he is not making his own prayer – he enters into an act of prayer which is going on independently of himself as an individual, because it is the prayer of Christ, our high Priest. Even on earth each Eucharist is not a separate act of worship, but the taking up, in that particular place, of the ceaseless worship of the Church throughout the world, and is one with the worship of the Church Triumphant…

The prayers of the Liturgy are plural, not singular, “we” not “I” (just as our Lord taught us in the fundamental liturgical prayer to say “Our Father”), for they are the prayers of the whole body of Christ. We must realize the universality of the liturgy – that it is not simply the action of the few or many people gathered together in the particular building in which the Eucharist is being celebrated; in the celebration of the holy mysteries that congregation is one with the whole Church, semper et ubique, the barriers of time and space disappear, the faithful are lifted up to the heavenly places, Christ descends upon the holy table, and the Church militant, expectant and triumphant, is one.

In the Liturgy is realized the unity of the Body of Christ, for the Church is an entity; its vital principle is the life of Christ, it is one with him its head, guided by the Holy Ghost. The individual Christian is not an entity, but a member of this unity, a cell of this living organism which is the Church. He has his own spiritual life, which must be lived and developed, but which can never be developed fully apart from the life in the organism.

The collective prayer of the body differs considerably from the separate prayer of the individual, for it is not simply the sum of many individual prayers, but the prayer of an organism which is more than an aggregation of individuals, the prayer of the mystical body of Christ the high Priest.

Attempts are sometimes made to assimilate the prayer of the Liturgy to that of the individual, but such attempts are really misguided. Services of a popular character (using the word “popular” in its best not its cheapest sense) are necessary to the full expression of individual devotion and must exist side by side with the Liturgy, but the two must not be mixed or substituted for one another. A sensitive soul instantly feels that extempore praying and subjective hymn-singing, while eminently right at a prayer meeting, are out of place at the Eucharist, though perhaps he may not be able to say why he feels it. The individualist, on the other hand, wants to find in public prayer the direct expression of his own spiritual condition and needs, and to him therefore the Liturgy seems to be generalized, formal and cold…

The fact is that individual prayer, even when collective, is one thing, and the liturgical prayer of the Church another, and both are necessary. The Liturgy is not concerned with the individual as such; it is the expression of the worship of the body; hence liturgical prayer is essentially and rightly impersonal. The individual is required to sacrifice his individualism in order that he may enter into the fullness of the Body of Christ. Only as he is humble enough to do this does he find out what worship really is. In liturgical worship one is worshipping God the Father in union with the Incarnate Son, and this worship “through Jesus Christ our Lord” is far deeper than the most beautiful offering of our own which we can make to God the Son, because he is offering it in us who are members of his Body.

The liturgical worship of the Church is essentially impersonal, because it is supra-personal, and this impersonality is right. The sacred vestments, so far from doing honor to the individual priest, obscure his personality; he is not longer A.B., but Christ’s deputy. The priest who attempts to use his personality or consciously develops personal eccentricities at the altar is putting himself before his Lord, and so dishonoring him; and the layman who worships merely as an individual is doing, in his own degree, much the same thing.

[Note: the truly corporate Liturgy provided by “The Book of Common Prayer” in its public services is explained and commended by Dr Peter Toon in Worship without Dumbing Down: Knowing God through Liturgy (The Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA, August 2005). It will be available from The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220 for $12.50, postage included, from mid-August.]

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

SAME-SEX AFFECTION booklet now ready

The 64 page booklet examining the ECUSA teaching on same-sex partnerships is now ready. Call 1-800-727-1928 to order multiple copies.

The RESPONSE to Bishop Griswold & his team concerning “Same-Sex Affection” by Peter Toon is not a repetition of commonly-made arguments against the blessing of homosexual practice made by opponents of active homosexuality and same-sex blessings, but is something different. And what it states is important, worrying & challenging for all Episcopalians and Anglicans, who care about the moral teaching of their Church.

In presenting its long essay, To Set our Hope on Christ, in book-form in June 2005 to the whole Anglican Communion in late June, Presiding Bishop Griswold and his team took a dramatic step. Not only did they publicly demonstrate their belief that covenanted same-sex unions of males or females can be examples of Gospel holiness, but they also demonstrated the theological methods by which they reached this conclusion. That is, they revealed how they approach Scripture and how they do theology, and in so doing how they embrace error and heresy.

The 64 page booklet by Dr Peter Toon – Same-Sex Affection, Holiness and Ordination – responds to the Griswold essay not by discussing homosexuality as such from within such disciplines as biology, anthropology and psychology. Rather, it faces head-on the basic theological methods used by the ECUSA team to come to its conclusions about homosexual partnerships. And, in doing so, it shows just how and why these methods will always produce results that are contrary to received orthodoxy.

So there is a major chapter on the topic of “the development of doctrine,” and the question is faced whether the claim that same-sex couples demonstrate holiness is truly a development or a corruption of doctrine.

Likewise, there is a major chapter on the interpretation of Scripture, and how the ECUSA team uses the data of Scripture as merely being the data of religious experience, to be used along with other data, to come to conclusions contrary both to the common-sense meaning of the text of Scripture and the way it has been understood for centuries.

What the booklet also makes clear is that the theological methods used by the ECUSA to justify and commend same-sex unions are methods which have been gaining ground within the liberal denominations of the USA, and especially within the Episcopal Church, since the 1960’s.

Regrettably, in fact very regrettably, even opponents of the sexual innovations have been using, or at least not opposing, the same methods, in other areas of church life where there has been major innovation in doctrine and practice, liturgy and prayer. However, the adoption by the Episcopal Church of the new doctrines of same-sex partnerships as blessed by God, and active homosexual persons ordained as Ministers, is not unexpected – at least not to those who have been watching how the Episcopal Church has increasingly innovated in doctrine and practice, liturgy and morality, canon law and discipline, over the last forty years!

Same-Sex Affection, Holiness & Ordination. A Response to Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold is published by the Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society on August 5, 2005, and is available from The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128-0220, for $7.50 per copy, postage included. Discounts are available for orders of five or more copies: call 1 – 800 – 727 – 1928 from August 1st.

Be sure to get a copy, or better to get several copies and share them with others.

Let there be a discussion as to how the Bible is read and used in parishes, and how theology is pursued in our colleges and seminaries -- and how this differs from the way It was read and used by earlier generations.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

On appreciating the Old & Good through encounter with its contemporary equivalent

It is reasonably certain that anything composed since the 1970s, and it is highly probable that anything that will be created in the next decade or more, as public liturgies will not compare favorably with the texts of the public services in The Book of Common Prayer (first English edition, 1549; latest USA edition, 1928). That is, will compare in quality as texts to be read aloud as forms of public worship which address God, the Father, in a suitably humble and reverent manner in the Name of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

To make these claims is not to say that it is impossible to worship the eternal and infinite Holy Trinity addressing the Three Persons as “You;” rather, it is to say that developing an excellent form of prayer language in contemporary English is a tremendously difficult task and that the contemporary Church is still a long way from attaining this goal. Thus, if any of us is wholly satisfied with the “You”-language used to address God in modern hymns and liturgies, then he or she has possibly set his/her aim too low, and is probably offering to God something less than the best that is possible.

There is, I believe, great value (for those who address God as “You”) in returning to the classic English texts of prayer and worship such as The Book of Common Prayer and the King James Version of the Bible and The English Hymnal (or another older Hymn Book). Returning, that is, to explore the quality, the style, the content and the doctrine of these texts, and to regain a vision of what it is to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness and in an excellent (yet understandable) form of words.

To assist in this task of visiting and appreciating classic texts, the Prayer Book Society has just published, Worshipping the LORD in the Anglican Way. Traditional Texts and Prayers from “ The Book of Common Prayer” (1928) in Parallel with Functional Equivalents in Contemporary English for Comparison and Study (July 2005).

On one side of the page is the classic text and on the other is a modern equivalent addressing God as “You.” The idea is that people used to modern liturgy will begin with the modern form of the text and then read the classic, and, possibly, see the merits and qualities, as well as style and doctrine, of the classic!

To buy a copy ($12.50 including postage) call 1 – 800- 727-1928 or write to the Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128-0220 Multiple copies available at much reduced price.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

Why I have been quiet!

July 13, 2005, a message from Peter Toon

I have seemingly been silent for the last month or so. No tracts have gone forth from my computer to my list of friends and interested parties.

The truth of the matter is that I have been working very hard. Now I break my silence as to what I have been doing

First, in preparing sermons for delivery in St Thomas Parish, Houston (to read and to hear them visit the website of the church, www.stthomashouston.org ) ;

Secondly, in re-writing my book of 1992 entitled, Knowing God through the Liturgy. In its new form it will be entitled, Worship without Dumbing Down: Knowing God through Liturgy (Prayer Book Society USA and Edgeways Books UK, late August 2005).

Thirdly, in writing a substantial reply to the book offered to the whole Anglican Communion by the Episcopal Church of the USA in explanation of its latest innovations in sexual relations and ordination. The book, from Bishop Griswold and his team and published by the Episcopal Church, is entitled, TO SET OUR HOPE ON CHRIST, which is based on 1 Peter 1:3 and is, I regret to say, a total misuse of that verse.

My reply is entitled: SAME-SEX AFFECTION, HOLINESS AND ORDINATION. A RESPONSE TO PRESIDING BISHOP FRANK.T GRISWOLD. You may read it on the website of St Thomas Church or on the website of the Prayer Book Society (www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 ) from July 13.

It will be published as a booklet of 64 pages by The Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA in mid-August for $7.50, postage included. There will be special prices for orders of 5 and more. Call 1-800-727-1928 from August lst to order.

I show (a) that the innovatory doctrine of the Episcopal Church is not a genuine development of doctrine, but the very opposite; (b) that its claimed scriptural basis is non-existent; and (c) that the theological method used by the Bishop and his team is of such a kind as to lead to heresies and errors. I appeal to them to reconsider their position and to examine carefully the received teaching of the Catholic Church on chastity, celibacy and marriage, and also to change their theological method, which exalts contemporary “experience”.

The Prayer Book Society hopes that this response will demonstrate to Episcopalians in the USA and to Anglicans overseas that not all those who call themselves Episcopalians or Anglicans in the USA have accepted the innovations in doctrine and morality that the Episcopal Church has adopted since the 1960s. Of these, the doctrines that same-sex affection is holy before God and that persons in same-sex unions may be ordained as priests and consecrated as bishops are but the latest, and, of course, the ones in which the media has the greatest interest.

The Society also hopes that concerned Episcopalians will help to distribute this substantial booklet far and wide as a testimony for Basic Christianity and traditional Christian teaching on sexual relations between male and female. After all, the classic Book of Common Prayer is the Liturgy of Basic Christianity, its faith and morals.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)