Collects to Pray on Christmas Day

[A brief message to those who have received my e-mail tracts over the last year. MAY YOU HAVE A BLESSED AND JOYFUL TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS. Now please read on. Thanks. Peter Toon.]

In the Ecclesia Anglicana before she began to use English (as the Church of England) for the whole of the Liturgy in 1549, there were Three Latin Collects for Christmas Day. The Missal of Sarum (Salisbury) in use up to 1549 made provision for three Masses for this high festival – one at cockcrow, one at the break of dawn, and one in full daylight. (No midnight Mass then!)

At the Mass at cockcrow the Collect prayed (in translation):

O God, who madest this most sacred night to shine with the brightness of the true Light; Grant, we beseech thee, that we, as we have known the revelations of the Light upon earth, so we may also have the fruition of his joys in heaven; who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth one God world without end. Amen.

This recalls Jesus as the Light of the world especially as he is so presented in the Prologue and Text of the Gospel according to St. John.

At the Mass at dawn the Collect prayed:

Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, to us upon whom the new light of the Word made flesh is shed forth, that the light which shines by faith in our hearts may also shine brightly in our works. Through the same Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

This also specifically recalls the Prologue of the Gospel according to St. John.

At the Mass in the full light of day the Collect prayed:

Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that the new birth of thy only-begotten Son through the flesh may set free those, who are held fast by the old bondage under the yoke of sin. Through the same Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

Here the Incarnation of the Son of God, born from Mary his virgin mother, is seen as the basis for the salvation offered to us through the same Jesus Christ.

In the provision for the new Book of the Common Prayer (1549), the reformed Church of England provided only one Collect along with the Epistle and Gospel set for the third Mass in the Latin Church. However this Collect was a new creation from the hand of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

Almighty God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin; Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit through the same Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

In this Collect we have a most beautiful combination of sound doctrine and of inspired petition.

The Son of God was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity before he took to himself human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary. At the Annunciation and Conception, Mary conceived Jesus miraculously by the presence of the Holy Ghost; at the same time the Son of God who had eternally his divine nature acquired the beginnings of a human nature, so he became One Person made known in two natures, divine and human.

As the Son of God was born according to his human nature from Mary, Blessed Virgin, so each of us is to be born of the Holy Ghost into the kingdom of God and thereby made into the adopted children of God, through the love of the Father and the grace of the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

And as the Son of God in his human nature lived as Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilling the vocation of the Messiah and Suffering Servant of God, so we are to fulfill the vocation of the children of God called unto holiness and service in the kingdom and church of God our Father.

Christmas is a time for rejoicing with the heavenly host that the Son of God has become man for us and our salvation. It is also a time to see and accept what is the vocation of the regenerate children of God and by the help of the Holy Ghost fulfill the same.

A BLESSED AND JOYFUL TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS!

Peter Toon December 23, 2005

Russian Orthodox Back Vatican Stance On Gays.

RUSSIA’S ORTHODOX Church has backed the Vatican’s position on homosexuals in seminaries, and accused Protestant denominations of “succumbing to secular values” over the issue.

“Homosexuality was called a sin in Holy Scripture – there’s no possibility of any other interpretation,” said Fr Igor Vyzhanov, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Commission for Inter-Christian Dialogue. “There are certain differences in how we handle candidates for priesthood, since celibacy is obligatory for Catholics whereas Orthodox can marry if they don’t aspire to hierarchical posts. But there’s total agreement between both Churches as concerns candidates’ homosexual tendencies.”

The priest was speaking a fortnight after an instruction by the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s “profound respect” for homosexuals, but said Catholic seminaries should not admit students for ordination who “practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’”.

He told Russia’s Interfax newsagency Orthodox leaders were “astonished” at attempts by Protestant communities “to revise Biblical teachings”, believing it reflected their “dependence on influence from secular currents devoid of all moral foundations”.

“Homosexuals should be viewed as people suffering from a serious illness,” said Fr Vyzhanov, who handles the Russian Church’s ties with Catholics. “If laypeople are forbidden to engage in homosexual acts, so much more should priesthood candidates and Church people seek not political correctness, but a firm foundation for their faith in life.”

The comments came as another Russian Orthodox leader repeated his call for a “Catholic-Orthodox Alliance” to negotiate with European institutions and other faiths on behalf of “traditional Christianity”.

“The main themes would be social, ethical and bioethical questions and family policy,” Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, the Church’s representative to the European Union, told an inter-Church conference in Vienna. “But the group could also work out a code of behaviour for Catholics in predominantly Orthodox countries and for Orthodox in Catholic countries. In this way, it could contribute to overcoming the problem of proselytism.”

Catholic-Orthodox ties have long been tense in Russia and Eastern Europe over Orthodox complaints of Catholic proselytism, as well as over the revival of Greek or Eastern Catholic churches, who combine the eastern liturgy with loyalty to Rome and are known pejoratively as “Uniates” by Orthodox leaders.

An International Commission for Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue met again this week in Rome, five years after breaking down over the issue of “Uniatism” at its last session in Baltimore, in the United States.

Bishop Hilarion said he believed Catholic Bishops’ Conferences should “unite their efforts” with Orthodox Churches to stem Europe’s “rapid de-Christianisation” and prevent the continent from losing its “centuries-old Christian identity”.

Jonathan Luxmoore, Warsaw

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/citw.cgi/past-00261#EUROPE

The Demise of Evangelicals in PECUSA: A cautionary tale

The evangelical movement could claim half the total bishops and clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1850 but by the First World War representatives of this school were difficult to find in this Church. In contrast, the anglo-catholic movement which was hardly present before 1850 was widespread in 1914.

Why did such a large party, with such distinctive views, collapse and disappear? Professor Gillis J. Harp has made a major beginning in answering this question by his essay entitled, “The Strange Death of Episcopalianism” in Anglican and Episcopal History, Volume LXXIV, No.2., 2005, pp.180ff. He groups his different explanations under three headings – generational (the torch was not passed on by the older generation to the young one), institutional (the seminaries did not maintain and commend a viable evangelical Faith, Churchmanship and lifestyle); and cultural/theological (evangelicals tended to be of step with the romanticism and idealism whereas the new school of anglo-catholicism walked more in step with them). To these he adds two further factors, the departure of some Evangelicals to form the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873 and before this, the American Civil War which (in my judgment he does not emphasize sufficiently) seriously caused the weakening of the evangelical party.

I do urge my readers to study what Dr Harp has written and follow up suggestions in his notes.

My particular interest here is to suggest that the massive demise of Evangelicalism in the PECUSA provides us with a “cautionary tale” (I am rather fond of this expression for in his Preface to my first book, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in England [1967] Dr James I Packer stated that the story I told of the formation of this extreme type of Calvinism was a cautionary tale to all would-be Calvinists!) And this 19th century story of PECUSA Evangelicals is a cautionary tale not only to present-day Evangelicals in the ECUSA and AMiA but also to old-style Anglo-Catholics in the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions and also in the ECUSA.

In the latter part of the 19th century, the general cultural setting was such as to make the ceremonial, ritualism and drama of anglo-catholic liturgy more appealing to Episcopalians than the stolid and formal low-church, evangelical service of the Word. The shape and content of the Eucharist in the candle-lit building was more attractive than the preacher in a Geneva gown speaking from the big pulpit after the singing of canticles. The Evangelicals tended to carry on after the Civil War as before and much like they did at the beginning of the 19th century. They united their changeless Gospel to a seemingly changeless presentation and dress. And that dress was not in fashion after the mid-century. Apparently they did not distinguish the essence from the social and cultural setting and thus they did not do sufficient to adapt in terms of music, drama and the aesthetics of their services and liturgy. They acted as though the reading and exposition of the Word of God alone done in an eighteenth-century style would be sufficient to maintain the cause. And all this was done, to a large degree, because they believed that they were resisting the inroads of [roman] Catholicism into the Protestant ECUSA.

And so while the Evangelicals fumbled, the Anglo-Catholics (the “ritualists”) gained greater support; and even the low and broad churchmen of the day began slowly to make their services more colorful and ornate.

Evangelicalism wearing its early 19th century dress was not acceptable to churchgoers in the last part of the same century and so it did not reproduce itself and it gradually died out. Further, the three evangelical seminaries lost their fervor in mid-century and so they produced more ministers for the broad church school than for the evangelical cause. And once a great movement gets into decline, then the decline tends to accelerate! So Evangelicalism went off the map!

What is the cautionary tale here?

Perhaps it is that a church cannot live on nostalgia and imagine it can either maintain or re-create a past period of bliss or success. The 19th century Evangelicals erred in their seeking to keep the old ways in place when the changing world around them required that they adapt to be seen and heard. Modern traditionalists in the ECUSA and in the Continuing Jurisdictions, whatever their churchmanship, have to face this temptation and danger of thinking that, for example, the 1950s, before the ravages of the 1960s, is the decade to be made present again for then the traditional ways seemed to prosper.

Or perhaps it is that the Evangelical movement to be “successful” has to be securely based on Scripture and the classic Formularies, but at the same time has to be open to a variety of possible ways of worshipping God and serving him – without denying its true character. If it goes overboard on the side of relevance, simplicity and acceptability, then it loses its classic character and its Anglican nature; if it simply glories in its security in Scripture and the Formularies, then it soon ceases to be an active church. The 19th century Evangelicals had the Faith but they put it in sealed boxes, as it were, and so their worship and witness began to lose authenticity and appeal.

Modern ECUSA Evangelicals seem not to be in danger of losing the desire to minister to their generation in appropriate ways, but they are perhaps dangerously near to losing hold on their roots, of forgetting the historic and classic Formularies of the Anglican Way. So they are possibly near to being merely Evangelicals who happen to use a simplified liturgy, and, as such, they may be a long way from the wholeness of the Anglican Way.

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

Evangelicalism in the [Protestant] Episcopal Church of the USA: The mid-19th and early 21st centuries contrasted

Students of the history of the PECUSA to World War I face many fascinating facts. One such is that in 1850 conservative Evangelicals made up as much as fifty per cent of the house of bishops, clergy and parishes of the Church, and, by the arrival of World War I, they had virtually completely disappeared. There was no evangelical party as such in the PECUSA from then until the 1970s when it was re-introduced (howbeit in a changed form) from Britain and Australia (with the setting up of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in PA and other organizations).

Looking back, the evangelical school of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the mid-nineteenth century may be characterized in six ways, by its commitment to:

• Conversionism – expecting repenting, believing sinners to have an experience of conversion;
• Activism – showing evangelistic energy and busy pastoral work;
• Biblicism – committed to the final authority of the holy Scriptures for faith and conduct;
• Crucicentrism -- preaching the message of Christ crucified and teaching the centrality of the Atonement at Calvary;
• Churchmenism – loyal members of the national Church and committed to its Formularies as evangelical Churchmen; and
• Anti-Ritualism – opposed to the emerging agenda in liturgy and doctrine of the anglo-catholic movement.

In the 19th century USA Evangelicals founded three seminaries (in Alexandria VA, in Gambier, OH, and in Philadelphia, PA), published newspapers (Episcopal Record and The Episcopalian) and ran evangelistic and educational societies (e.g. the Evangelical Knowledge Society). They were in mid-century a force to be reckoned with!

Yet, by 1914 this school or party was gone and the reasons for it cannot simply be attributed to schism which led to the formation of The Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873, for this schism only took a small proportion of the evangelical clergy and laity out of the PECUSA.

For too long insufficient academic effort has been devoted to seeking to establish the reasons for the total demise of the evangelical party in PECUSA. However, with the publication of the essay “The Strange Death of Evangelical Episcopalianism” by Professor Gillis J. Harp in Anglican and Episcopal History, Vol LXXIV, No 2, 2005, pp/180 ff. a wrong has been righted and we are well on the way to discovering what happened to the Evangelical School and its institutions, parishes and organizations.

I urge the serious-minded to read this essay, if for no other reason that it is a “cautionary tale” from which modern Evangelicals can possibly learn. (I will return to its thesis in a further e-mail essay.)

The introduction of Evangelicalism into the (now) ECUSA in the 1970s is easy to explain for it was basically an implant, although there were those within ECUSA (a) of the more hearty Low Church School and (b) who had been influenced by the Charismatic Movement (via Dennis Bennet, Terry Fulham et al) who were most welcoming of the new religion. This new Evangelicalism shared the characteristics of conversionism, activism, Biblicism and crucicentrism. Yet it did so in what we may call a generic evangelical way (being much influenced by the strong, general evangelical movement of the period). Regrettably, it was not specifically committed to the historic formularies of the Church (for in the ECUSA these were removed in the 1970s) and it was more than content to use the new forms of liturgy and new paraphrases of the Bible then being pressed on parishes by their bishops, for these new creations were seen as being relevant, accessible and simple because in contemporary language. Further, it was happy to work within a basic ritualism (which liberal Catholicism had introduced with the new forms of liturgy) and to call its clergy “Father” – because it was not conscious of or perhaps interested in the doctrinal questions involved (see Peter Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856, A Response to Tractarianism, 1979, UK & USA).

If we look at the Evangelical movement now in the ECUSA as found for example in The Network we can see that it is the true continuation of that which was begun in the 1970s. It does not seriously question anything that was in place in the ECUSA when it was started and it only protests against innovations that it has seen emerge during its own lifetime – e.g., forms of extreme inclusive language; the requirement that all office holders agree to the ordination of women, and most obviously the blessing of same-sex couples and the ordaining of persons in such partnerships.

Thus its members find somewhat irrelevant the calls from some quarters (e.g. the Prayer Book Society of the USA) for the restoration of the historic and classic Formularies as the standard of Faith for the Church, and the making of the 1979 Book to be what it actually is in its content, a Book of Alternative Services. They are, however, more sensitive to the calls for a restoration of marriage discipline for in their sober, reflective moments they know that the present situation of the right of any divorcee to remarriage in church and the high percentage of divorced and remarried clergy are scandalous – as is also the culture that allows abortion as a means of birth control.

My own hope is that the present Evangelical (and also Charismatic) school that dominates The Network’s membership will make time to look seriously at the Evangelical Movement in history and will be prepared to add to its zeal for evangelization and church growth a zeal for true and proper foundations in Scripture and the historic Formularies for the Anglican Way. I hope it will discover a genuine hearty and zealous form of Reformed Catholicism as the true religion of the Anglican Way, which on this sure foundation, is a truly comprehensive Way, allowing for a variety of churchmanship and theological emphases!

petertoon@msn.com December 15, 2005

When Christmas triumphs over the Lord’s Day

In 2005 Christmas Day, December 25, falls on the first day of the week, Sunday, known as the Lord’s Day by Christians.

While Christmas as a Festival kept annually by the Church only goes back to the fourth century, the Lord’s Day, the first Day of the week, as the weekly Celebration of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead goes back to the apostolic age (see Revelation 1: 10).

The English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians – and their New England descendants – did not celebrate Christmas because it was not clearly a biblical festival, there being no command with reference to it in the New Testament. They treated it as a normal day. However, they did have a very high doctrine of the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath and the keeping of this was a basic moral duty (see the Ten Commandments!).

Against this background, it is at first sight perhaps NOT surprising to see an advert such as this which appeared in Oklahoma recently:

Life Church
Christmas Eve Worship Experiences

Join us on December 24 at the Oklahoma City Campus for our Christmas Eve celebration! Experiences will be held at 2:30 PM, 4 PM, 5:30 PM, and 7 PM.

Because Christmas falls on a Sunday this year, all Christmas worship experiences will take place on Saturday December 24, Christmas Eve only. There will be not be worship experiences on Sunday, December 25.

It is our most sincere hope that you will be able to use this opportunity to spend some time with your family and enjoy the holiday together.

However it is surprising for here we find an amazing thing -- that the leadership of a supposed Christian congregation, a very large one, is saying that there is NO duty to worship God the Father in the Name of the Lord Jesus on the weekly celebration of the resurrection in late December. What may be called the secular understanding of Christmas – family get together for a holiday celebration – has triumphed and the assembly of Christians is closed down on that day which is this year, nothing less than the Lord’s Day. (And the same is happening in many similar churches of the Willow Creek type across the USA.)

The practice of being user-friendly, relevant and “with it” has here clearly triumphed over the clear teaching of the New Testament and the requirement of the law of God.

In defense of the leadership of the “Life Church” one may note that they are asking people to attend services on the Saturday, the 24th. However, why they could not have also opened their building for one service, just one, for those who have a sense of “Sunday duty” is puzzling. Also why they could not, like the Catholic Church, have a Midnight Celebration, on the 24th, is also puzzling. For they are not like the Puritans of the 17th and 18th centuries who abolished Christmas but most seriously kept the Lord’s Day. In fact they are so committed to Christmas as a public holiday and general family get-to-together that they are ready to close down their church on the festival day, even if that day is the day of days, the festival of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

What is clear is that churches such as this one in Oklahoma will (at least in the short term) grow in numbers and popularity. It may be observed that at least part of their attraction is that they tailor Christianity to fit into American life so that there is a minimum break with American culture and society for church members.

In contrast, the fullness of Catholic & Evangelical doctrine and practice stands in in contrast to, even in conflict with, much American culture and practice.

Maybe this Christmas we all need to hear these solemn words:

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life and those who find it are few.” (Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount)

petertoon@msn.com December 12, 2005

Anglican Formularies – Are Evangelicals really missing out?

Let me begin by an exaggeration in order to make a point.

When an evangelical and/or charismatic Episcopalian congregation is told: “the Formularies are necessary, and, while you can be ECUSA members without them, you cannot be genuine Anglicans without them,” it responds by making it clear that such talk is irrelevant, untrue and unhelpful.

However, for the few who pay a little attention to this message, questions arise like: What are the Formularies? Which of our leaders has said anything about them? We have the Scriptures which are our authority for faith and conduct; we are submitted to the Lordship of Christ, and we are obeying the great commission to evangelize, what more is there?

And thus even the few, who are busy with good works, deem the pursuit of this matter not urgent and thus suitable perhaps for another day.

But a few of the few go past this point and are ready to learn that the Formularies are those forms of doctrine which stand under the authority of Scripture to indicate the nature and character of the Anglican Way as a jurisdiction in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. And so the questions that this minority raise are: Are not the old Book of Common Prayer, Ordination Services, and Thirty-Nine Articles from the sixteenth century and do they not speak to their own place and time? Why do we need Formularies when we have good translations of the Bible, the Creeds, and commentaries on the Bible to unlock its meaning to us?

And so most in this minority stop here. There are many things to do and to pursue and this matter is not first on the agenda but may could be looked at later – maybe in a Lenten course.

Finally, the very tiny minority who get past these questions, and who accept the necessity of Formularies to be the means of providing both the standards of, and the direction for, a national Church (e.g., C of E) and then for each of the member churches of a Communion of Churches (Anglican), ask such questions as: How can we convince our brethren that the Anglican Way is actually by nature and in character Reformed Catholicism and that as such it has its basic, foundational Formularies, without which it is as a boat without a rudder on the ocean, i.e., that it is merely a liturgical form of modern generic evangelicalism sailing in circles on the same ocean? How can we arrange our own worship, life and witness so that they are true to the Scriptures and to the form of Christianity, Reformed Catholicism, which we have embraced?

And this very tiny minority, though feeling satisfied in their own souls that they are where they ought to be, are very conscious that the majority around them claims the name of “Anglican” for what seem to be only experiential, practical and administrative reasons – not for genuine, historic and classical doctrinal ones.

Perhaps here is the right place to reflect for a moment on the word “Formulary”, which is not a word in common usage, but an important word, nevertheless, as it has been used in serious Anglican discourse consistently since the sixteenth century. The Latin word, formularius (liber) [=a book of formulae], on which it is based, pointed to a collection of set forms or instructions for the performance or direction of a ceremony or an official duty. Thus a “formulary’ within a national Church is a book which contains the set forms and rules of what the Church believes, teaches and confesses, the liturgy it uses, and the way it creates the ordained Ministry. In reforming itself in the sixteenth century, the Ecclesia Anglicana reformed its Formularies (those which had been in force in the medieval period) to create three new ones – The Book of Common Prayer, The Book of Ordination Services [Ordinal] and The Thirty-Nine Articles, along with a new edition of Canon Law. Under the authority of Scripture, these summed up and presented the standards, norms and means by which the reformed Church of England sought to be the national jurisdiction of the Catholic Church of God. These Formularies not only provided the way to worship and serve God daily but they also distinguished the Church of England from other jurisdictions in Scotland and Europe. Take away the Formularies and leave only the Bible and what you have is a Church without shape, form and substance for there are no common standards or guidelines to govern all the many parts and keep them together as one.

Until the 1960s Anglicans were usually well aware of the Formularies, for they used the Book of Common Prayer for worship daily, the Ordinal for all services of ordination to the diaconate, priesthood and episcopate, and the Thirty-Nine Articles for learning the doctrine of the Anglican Way (clergy used excellent, learned commentaries on the Articles as their text-books in doctrine – see the CD of twelve such texts from the Prayer Book Society, www.anglicanmarketplace.com ). Then with the advent of new translations of the Bible, new liturgies, the addressing God as “You” not “Thou” and the near obsession with relevance, credibility, and simplicity, Episcopalians and Anglicans in the West began to lose touch with their roots.

The Episcopal Church put much energy, money and propaganda into creating new services and then published them under the old name of that which was being rejected! The book of varied, modern services was called The Book of Common Prayer (1979) and this became (with its own services for ordination and its own new Catechism) the one and only Formulary of the Episcopal Church. The Formularies which had been in place until then were set aside and known as historical documents.

This being so evangelical Episcopalians (as also progressive liberal Episcopalians and anglo-catholic Episcopalians) in the ECUSA are committed by their ordination vows (unless they repudiate it) to the Formulary which is the 1979 Prayer Book, and there by are committed to the revised form, greatly changed form, of the Anglican Way that it represents. (In Canada, the new Book of Services was deliberately called, The Book of Alternative Services (1985) to distinguish it from the classic BCP which remains the Formulary of that Church.)

The presence of this new Formulary it must be said has been a major factor in allowing the General Convention to continue its revision of received doctrine, morality and discipline, for most of its innovations are in harmony with the form of doctrine in the 1979 Prayer Book.

Happily the Anglican Mission in America has restored the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way to its foundation, and is now involved in asking what this means for its present forms of worship, witness and mission. (Regrettably, in my view this is occurring too slowly but it is occurring!)

Unhappily, the Anglican Communion Network has not yet gone very far on the way to the adoption of the historic Formularies (as received by the Protestant Episcopal Church from 1789-1979), partly because the ECUSA affiliation of virtually all its membership makes this seemingly impossible, and partly that it is not yet convinced of the need for it in order to be truly Anglican (even though the Anglican Church of Nigeria has made a very clear statement of commitment to the classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles).

The fact remains that the Anglican Way is Reformed Catholicism and that as such it has its Formularies, and that without these as foundation and guide, it ceases to be a viable Jurisdiction of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Precisely how this works out in the twenty-first century is a task which requires great knowledge, wisdom, discernment and sensitivity and, regrettably, it is a task from which Episcopalians and Anglicans have been diverted for too long!

petertoon@msn.com December 11, 2005

Chicken or the Egg? Which came first, enlightenment from the Bible or from the culture?

When the Church is fulfilling its vocation to worship the Lord and to evangelize the people it is always adapting and changing. Not adapting and changing its doctrines, basic forms of worship, moral teaching and discipline, and Ministry, for to do so would be to engage in the path of apostasy. Rather, adapting as occasion requires, its methods of communication, its style of presentation, its ways of having fellowship, its use of music, its relation to the local community and culture, the relation of clergy and laity in shared ministry, and so on.

Certainly the local church/congregation cannot avoid being in the world, situated in specific place at a given time, and this means it is within a given society and culture which in outreach it has seriously to take into account. Yet the church is not to be conformed to the world even as it seeks to be for the world – that is, for its conversion to God, for its spiritual and moral renovation and for its physical welfare.

When the surrounding society and culture is part of “Christendom” and is generally governed by Christian views of personal and family life, then the pressure on the Church to follow the world and be conformed to it is not usually towards the changing of the internal doctrine of the Church. Rather it is more towards a dull orthodoxy and nominal Christianity.

However, when the surrounding society and culture is rejecting Christendom and adopting secular principles and values, then the pressure on the Church to modify or change its doctrine, worship, moral teaching and discipline becomes intense. The members of the Church live in a society where new and exciting ideas are being propagated and where calls are being made for changes that seem to be just and reasonable. Such a situation was faced by the Churches in Europe and the USA from the time when the Enlightenment made its impact in the late 19th century and the intensity of this pressure reached its zenith in the period after World War II to the present time.

If we now look only at one denomination in the USA it will be the easier to face the question concerning the chicken and the egg. We know that the Episcopal Church made great changes or introduced major innovations from 1950 to 2005. Did these arise because this Church, as inspired or pressed by changes in society and culture, began to see truths in the Bible that she had previously missed? Or did these arise because she consciously or unconsciously followed or imitated society and then looked to the Bible for justification? Or did these arise partly through the reading of Scripture and partly through the imitation of secular trends?

The major innovations of this period adopted by the Church seem to be the following: the acceptance of artificial means of birth control, including abortion, in some cases, as morally acceptable; widespread marriage of divorcees in church as morally acceptable; full membership and rights for all ethnic and racial minorities; the ordination of women to the Three Orders of Ministry contrary to the long tradition of a male-only Ministry; the creation and adoption of a new Prayer Book (a Book of Varied Services) which was falsely called “the Book of Common Prayer” as if it were another edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer; the commitment to new language for God and human beings which recognizes that women are half the population; the acceptance that there is a minority in society who are “homosexual” in “orientation” and that as such they should be given full membership of the Church and full rights therein; and the emergence of the office of bishop as the Chief Executive Office and Chief Liturgical Officer of the diocese.

When we examine these innovations it is reasonably clear (and sociological studies are conforming this) that in most cases it was clearly a case of the Church following trends and changes in society and culture.

In the case of remarriage, there was a tremendous increase in divorce after World War II and the Church, it may be claimed, acted pastorally by first counseling and then blessing the marriages of many divorcees. What began as a pastoral emergency became the way things were and still are – with nearly half of the adult membership divorced and remarried. Re- marriage in church is now an established right. (In this general context, the purpose of marriage was redefined in terms of personal fulfillment and in this procreation became an option!)

In the case of the ordination of women, again it is clear that the powerful forces of secular feminism were felt within the Church and it was these which caused a majority to vote for the entry of women into the Ministry even as they were entering other “professions.” Again, in the case of active “homosexuals” being admitted to full membership including ordination, it is a clear case of the Church following what was occurring in society and culture.

Now in these three cases, the experiential context is that once you feel convinced that what is being done is right then you will look for ways to justify it or at least show it is not wrong from your sacred tradition, especially your holy Books. This led to new ways both of translating the Bible and of interpreting the Bible. Texts which previously said “No” now said “Yes”. These new ways are now thought of by many as the normal ways. But the use of the Bible was secondary to the influence of secular teachings.

If we think about the granting of full membership rights to ethnic minorities then we are perhaps in a different context. While the pressure came from society, it was pressure led in the main by persons who were acting out of Christian faith and morality (e.g. Dr Martin Luther King). So in this instance the Episcopal Church did what was right and what had been there for all to see in the Bible since the apostolic age – to make clear that in Baptism and church membership there is equality of races and the sexes.

The changing role of bishops to become CEOs is obviously imitative of the way business is supposedly run efficiently; and the training of clergy to be skilled in counseling and management (so as to manage well a congregation) reflects both the influence of theories from secular management and secular psychology. The latter have been tremendously influence on a whole range of doctrines and practices creating sometimes a therapeutical religion.

Finally, the readiness of the General Convention publicly to endorse a falsehood in the title of its new prayer book, points to the arrogance and self-confidence of a Church that believed that it is autonomous and that majority decisions made by it are the will of God!

The spirit of the 1960s had gone, as it were, to its head and it believed that the majority vote was the action of the Divine Spirit. The Episcopal Church still glories in its autonomy and that it abides by its rules meticulously in its innovating!

What is abundantly clear is that the Episcopal Church has in terms of its worship, doctrine, discipline, language used to address God, and polity changed dramatically – even as it has diminished in membership and influence – since World War II, and especially from the late 1960s. It is also very clear that it has been secular forces which have supplied the major energy and ideology to cause this dramatic change, and to set in motion an avalanche that is apparently impossible to stop.

The amazing thing is that in a few dioceses, and in parishes in other dioceses, there has been a remnant which has not been taken in by the whole of the innovations, but which has managed to keep at bay some of them, and thus by God’s favor maintain a semblance if not an example of godly worship, order and piety! Whether the remnant can and will hold out remains an open question!

petertoon@msn.com December 10, 2005

Are we nostalgic for a gold age past? Do we advocate a return to former days of glory?

I suspect that those of us who advocate a return to the historic Anglican Way and its Formularies are “heard” by some as being nostalgic advocating a return to a past glory period of the life of the Church – be it in the history of the Church of England or the Episcopal Church. Yet this is not so, at least for the leadership of the Prayer Book Society of the USA. We are not nostalgic and we do not advocate a return to a former period of church life.

Each period of history, and each period of the life of the Church in space and time, is unique. It can never be repeated or re-lived.

The period of the Early Church as recorded in the New Testament is also unique but in more than one sense. The extra sense is that during this period the revelatory work of God the Father continued through the ministry and teaching of the Apostles and Evangelists, and what God said through them is now deposited in the books of the New Testament. Thus the New Testament is the Word of God written for our instruction and salvation.

So returning to the New Testament, or returning to the Early Church, or returning to the Reformed Church of England in the sixteenth century, does not mean attempting to reproduce in our time what occurred then. Rather, it points to learning humbly as taught by the Holy Spirit first from the Scriptures, then from the Documents of the Church at any one period of time (e.g. patristic age), receiving the foundational, fundamental or important doctrines, principles and practices present and in operation then.

The New Testament is the Authority for our Faith and Conduct; we read and interpret its content and then apply it carefully to our present situation. The period after the apostles, the patristic age, provides us with all kinds of important information of what the Church believed, taught and confessed and how it worshipped. Again we study this and apply it to our situation. The sixteenth century provides us with the documents [the Formularies] that were produced and accepted as the basis and standard for worship, doctrine, discipline, polity and morality.

The Canon Law of the Church of England states the matter succinctly: “The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal.” (The last Three are the Formularies.)

We do not advocate seeking to recover the worship and witness of the Church in the first or second or sixteenth or any other century. What we advocate is a reasonable application of the doctrines of the Word of God to the contemporary church, in the light of the experience and example of the Church of the Fathers, and according to the basic principles of the Formularies of the Anglican Way.

Thus, if new forms of service are produced in contemporary language then we state that their doctrine has to be in conformity with that of the Formularies; if innovations are proposed in the Ministry of the Church, in the Sacraments, in Marriage, or any other area, then we say that these are to be in conformity with the principles of the Formularies. We are all in favor of moving on but always within the principles on which we are founded.

So a return to the Scriptures, a return to the Fathers and a return to the Formularies are possible within a Church in the twenty-first century that is wholly engaged in the modern world – that is, in character, not of the world as such, but in the world and for the world in Christ’s name in holy mission. Such a church could use an organ or an orchestra or a band for its music. Such a church could use both the texts within the classic Book of Common Prayer in some services and modern equivalents in others (as long as they are doctrinally in harmony with the BCP). And these could be projected on to a screen to avoid use of books if necessary. Such a church could be “low” or “high” in ceremonial and could call its Ministers by the name of “Father” or “Mr.” or “Pastor”. And such a church would be the church of Jesus Christ for its neighborhood, for the local community and for the sake of the Gospel. It would not be bound to doing things as they were done in the 1950s or the 1970s or any other recent decade, though it may learn from what was done then. However, there would be an underlying continuity through space and time of the varied expressions of the Anglican Way.

Such a church would not seek to be relevant but to be faithful; it would not try to be acceptable to local culture and norms but be submitted to God’s revelation and law; and it would not dumb-down its message and worship so as to make instant converts, but it would proclaim the whole Gospel allowing the Holy Spirit to open men’s hearts to it.

So Reformed Catholicism in 2005 is not the transplant of the religion of the sixteenth century, reformed Church of England to another place and time. Rather it is that religion of the Anglican Way in another place and time that embodies the same roots, norms, principles and basic content as that of the sixteenth century Church of England. It is not infallible and so mistakes have been made and will be made.

The danger is always present for any local parish or national Church that has a sense of its history to idealize or romanticize a period or decade and seek to re-invent it in the present. To do so, however, is never successful and it is wholly contrary to the principles of Reformed Catholicism.

Let us concede that today there is a problem of perception concerning attempts to call the churches of the Anglican Way back to the foundational documents, the Formularies. We must seek ways of doing this which we hope do not portray nostalgia, for we do not intend to do so. In fact we do believe that the foundational principles and doctrines which were so powerfully applied to his time by Richard Hooker and to their time by the Caroline divines of the seventeenth century, can and should be applied to our time. And we have made and continue to make attempts in various ways to do this, usually to find that we are heard only by the few because the many are not tuned into the possibilities of what we write or talk about.

However, we do not give up hope and we do not allow ourselves to get depressed. We believe that genuine Reformed Catholicism is a way of being the Catholic Church of God on earth at this time and we shall continue by God’s help to seek to commend and to live it – despite the fact that many of our friends within the Anglican fold choose to go for either a generic form of Evangelicalism set to post-1960s liturgy or a generic form of liberal Catholicism set to post 1960s liturgy, or even a generic form of Pentecostalism set to post-1960s liturgy.

December 9, 2005

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

In Jesus’ Name. Amen. What is the right way to end a Christian Prayer?

In my essay, “Through and Through. Thank God for Prepositions” (December 7) I noted and explained why in Liturgy the primary way of ending a Collect or Prayer is “through our Lord Jesus Christ” (or similar words). This phrase is normally part of the prayer in that it is within the sentence that ends before the word “Amen” is said in response by the assembly.

However, in Evangelical churches/colleges/seminaries which use Liturgy the way that most people end an “ex tempore” prayer (composed by the speaker) is most often, “in Jesus’ Name. Amen.” In fact, it is not usually an ending properly speaking; it is a statement that is added to the Prayer, after the prayer is finished. Grammatically it stands alone as does the word “Amen” in formal Liturgy.

Where does this ending, “In Jesus’ Name. Amen.” come from? The first part is obviously derived from the teaching of Jesus who in his last Discourse before his arrest (John 14-17) spoke several times of the importance of asking the Father in his (Jesus’) name. For example, he said to the disciples: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatsoever you wish and it will be given you” (15:7 –NIV). Here we note that the promise is not an open one for any occasion and need. For only as the disciples are in intimate communion with Jesus, and obedient to his word, does this “law of prayer” actually work.

“Amen” is the traditional ending of a prayer (“So be it, Lord”); but it is the word of the assembly not of the person who prays. It is the agreement of the congregation to that which has been prayed. So there is a certain oddity about the person who composes a prayer within the assembly adding his own “Amen” to it!

Both the use of “through Jesus Christ” and “in Jesus’ Name” point clearly to the unique mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. That he brings God to man and then lifts man to God. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no-one comes to the Father except with, by, in and through Him!

So what concerns me about the popular use of “in Jesus’ Name. Amen.” in the average prayer meeting is this. It seems to be added to a prayer (often in a staccato voice) as a kind of triumphal statement and after-thought that God will most certainly hear – forgetting that the promise of Jesus requires that very profound conditions be met for this “law of prayer” to be effective. And that those conditions will most surely lead the person who prays to do so with a truly humble and reverent attitude and voice. (In saying this I realize that “through Jesus Christ…” can also descend into formality where true piety is absent!)

Another concern that I have is that public prayer is a sphere where we not only address God the Father but also that we teach others who are listening. Who is Jesus? He is the Lord, the Christ, the Son of God, the Mediator, the King, the High Priest and so on. Prayer-endings have traditionally been means of celebrating the identity of the Lord Jesus and thus imprinting on the hearts of hearers His full identity and vocation. Thus only to use Jesus can sound over-familiar and lacking in full respect for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Father-God

I am also deeply worried about the addressing the Deity as “Father-God.” This expression may seem on first sight to be fine because (a) Jesus addressed God as “my Father”, and (b) Jesus taught his disciples to address his Father as “our Father.” In the Epistles St Paul & St John teach us that “God” is “the Father” of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not “a Father” and not “Fatherly” but “the one and only Father, the Father of glory”. He is the “Father of the only-begotten Son” and by adoption and grace “the Father of all who believe on the Name of the Son.”

Thus the Church in her Liturgies has never prayed “Father-God” but rather, “O God, our Father,…” and, “O God, the Father of all mercies…” and “O God the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ…” and so on.

“Father-God” suggests that there is one God and this one God is characterized by “fatherliness.” In contrast, the Christian Religion is based on the belief and the doctrine that there is One God who is a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity and who as such is The Father, together with His Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus we believe, teach and confess that there is one God in Three Persons, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We baptize and bless in this Triune Name!

Certainly, it is proper to use the simile of fatherhood to describe God as God – as does the OT (like as a father pities his children so the LORD…) – but with the fullness of Revelation given in our Lord Jesus Christ, we now know that the Name of “the Father” is the Proper Name (not a metaphor or simile) of the First Person of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Let us say, AMEN!

(See Peter Toon, OUR TRIUNE GOD, Regent College, Vancouver, Publishing Dept, and take time to read The Athanasian Creed, printed at the back of the ECUSA 1979 prayer Book, and after Morning Prayer in the BCP 1662)

petertoon@msn.com December 9, 2005

From the NY Times: When Christmas Falls on Sunday, Megachurches Take the Day Off

December 9, 2005

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Some of the nation's most prominent megachurches have decided not to hold worship services on the Sunday that coincides with Christmas Day, a move that is generating controversy among evangelical Christians at a time when many conservative groups are battling to "put the Christ back in Christmas."

Megachurch leaders say that the decision is in keeping with their innovative and "family friendly" approach and that they are compensating in other ways. Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., always a pacesetter among megachurches, is handing out a DVD it produced for the occasion that features a heartwarming contemporary Christmas tale.
"What we're encouraging people to do is take that DVD and in the comfort of their living room, with friends and family, pop it into the player and hopefully hear a different and more personal and maybe more intimate Christmas message, that God is with us wherever we are," said Cally Parkinson, communications director at Willow Creek, which draws 20,000 people on a typical Sunday.

Megachurches have long been criticized for offering "theology lite," but some critics say that this time the churches have gone too far in the quest to make Christianity accessible to spiritual seekers.

"I see this in many ways as a capitulation to narcissism, the self-centered, me-first, I'm going to put me and my immediate family first agenda of the larger culture," said Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. "If Christianity is an evangelistic religion, then what kind of message is this sending to the larger culture - that worship is an optional extra?"

John D. Witvliet, director of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship at Calvin College, asked: "What about the people in society without strong family connections? The elderly, single people a long distance from family, or people who are simply lonely and for whom church and prayers would be a significant part of their day?"

The uproar is not only over closing the churches on Christmas Day, because some evangelical churches large and small have done that in recent years and made Christmas Eve the big draw, without attracting much criticism.

What some consider the deeper affront is in canceling services on a Sunday, which most Christian churches consider the Lord's Day, when communal worship is an obligation. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was in 1994. Some of these same megachurches remained open them, they say, but found attendance sparse.

Since then, the perennial culture wars over the secularization of Christmas have intensified, and this year the scuffles are especially lively. Conservative Christian groups are boycotting stores that fail to mention "Christmas" in their holiday greetings or advertising campaigns. Schools are being pressured to refer to the December vacation as "Christmas break." Even the White House came under attack this week for sending out cards with best wishes for the "holiday season."
When the office of Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia sent out a press release last Friday announcing plans for a "holiday tree" lighting, a half-hour later it sent out another saying, "It is in fact a Christmas tree."

For years, it has been an open secret that many mainline Protestant churches are half empty - or worse - on Christmas Day. The churches' emphasis has been instead on the days leading up to Christmas, with Christmas Eve attracting the most worshipers. Some of the megachurches closing on Christmas this year have increased the number of services in the days before.
But for the vast majority of the other churches, closing down on Christmas Sunday would be unthinkable.

"I can't even imagine not observing Christmas in an Episcopal church," said Robert Williams, a spokesman for the Episcopal Church USA. "The only thing I could think of would be a summer chapel that might be shut down anyway."

In many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, known for their rich liturgical traditions, Christmas Day attracts far more worshippers than an average Sunday. Grown children return with their parents to the parishes they belonged to when they were young.
"From the Catholic perspective, the whole purpose of the holiday is to celebrate it as a religious holiday in the company of the community, and for Catholics that means at Mass," said Robert J. Miller, director of research and planning in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Canceling worship on Christmas Day appears to be predominantly a megachurch phenomenon, sociologists of religion say.

"This attachment to a particular day on the calendar is just not something that megachurches have been known for," Nancy Ammerman, a sociologist of religion at Boston University, said. "They're known for being flexible and creative, and not for taking these traditions, seasons, dates and symbols really seriously."

At least eight megachurches have canceled their Christmas services. They are only a fraction of the 1,200 or so in the country, but they are influential, Scott Thumma, a sociologist of religion at Hartford Seminary, said. The trend has been reported in The Lexington Herald-Leader and in other newspapers.

Besides Willow Creek, the churches include Southland Christian Church in Nicholasville, Ky.; Crossroads Christian Church in Lexington, Ky.; Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Tex.; Redemption World Outreach Center in Greenville, S.C.; North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga.; First Baptist in Atlanta; and Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Mich.
Many other megachurches that are staying open on Christmas Day are holding fewer services than they would on a typical Sunday. New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, in Lithonia, Ga., with about 25,000 members, will hold only one of its usual two services this Christmas Day.
Bishop Eddie L. Long, the senior pastor, said that his church was "always promoting family," and that many members of his congregation were transplants to the Atlanta area who traveled far away to be with their families on Christmas.

"We're encouraging our members to do a family worship," Bishop Long said. "They could wake up and read Scripture and pray and sometimes sing a song, and go over the true meaning of what Christmas is, before opening up their gifts. It keeps them together and not running off to get dressed up to go off to church."

His church offers streaming video of the Sunday service, and Bishop Long said he expected a spike in viewers this Christmas. "They have an option if they want to join their family around the computer and worship with us," he said.

Staff members at Willow Creek said they had had few complaints from members about the church closing on Christmas. Said the Rev. Mark Ashton, whose title is pastor of spiritual discovery: "We've always been a church that's been on the edge of innovation. We've been willing to try and experiment, so this is another one of those innovations."

The real question is not why churches are skipping Christmas, but why individual Christians are skipping church on the second holiest day on the Christian calendar next to Easter, said Mr. Thumma.

"I think these critics who decry the megachurches should really be aiming their barbs at individual Christians who are willing to stay at home around the Christmas tree instead of coming and giving at least part of that day to the meaning of the holiday," he said. "They should be facing up to the reality of that."

From the New York Times