Anglicans Ablaze

http://www.gafcon.org/news/primates_statement_on_vatican_offer/

[GAFCON] 10 Nov 2009--We have received the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter informing us of the Pope’s offer of an ‘Apostolic Constitution’ for those Anglicans who wish to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. We believe that this offer is a gracious one and reflects the same commitment to the historic apostolic faith, moral teaching and global mission that we proclaimed in the Jerusalem Declaration on the Global Anglican Future and for this we are profoundly grateful.

We are, however, grieved that the current crisis within our beloved Anglican Communion has made necessary such an unprecedented offer. It represents a grave indictment of the Instruments of Communion whose very purpose is to strengthen and protect our unity in obedience to our Lord’s clear command. Their failure to fully address the abandonment of biblical faith and practice by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada has now brought shame to the name of Christ and seriously impedes the cause of the Gospel.

The Primates Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON/FCA) is convinced, however, that Anglicanism has a bright future as long as we remain grounded in the Holy Scriptures and obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ’s call to reach the lost and make disciples of all nations teaching them to observe the whole Gospel. We also believe that there is room within our Anglican family for all those who hold true to the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’. We would like to encourage those Anglicans who are considering this invitation from the Roman Catholic Church to recognize that Anglican churches are growing throughout the world in strength and offering a vibrant testimony to the transforming work of Christ.

We are convinced that this is not the time to abandon the Anglican Communion. Our Anglican identity of reformed catholicity, that gives supreme authority to the Holy Scriptures and acknowledgement that our sole representative and advocate before God is the Lord Jesus Christ, stands as a beacon of hope for millions of people. We remain proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation. This is a time for all Christians to persevere confident of our Lord’s promise that nothing, not even the gates of hell, will prevail against His Church.

+Peter Abuja,
Chairman,
GAFCON/FCA Primates Council

November 10, 2009

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1074

[Church Societ] 9 Nov 2009--According to its own doctrinal standards and history, the Church of England's true nature is that of a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic (in other words, universal) church. Orthodox Anglicanism is therefore defined by reference to these characteristics only, which are set out in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Church of England's submission to the over-arching authority of Scripture alone. Church Society seeks to defend and promote these defining characteristics, especially the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone which is at the heart of the message and mission of the Church of England.

While acknowledging the correct stand taken by Anglo-Catholics against theological liberalism (the features of which do not represent true, Biblical Anglicanism), it should also be noted that the true doctrine of the Church of England does not embrace any of the teachings or practices which characterise the Church of Rome. For instance, the Church of Rome is fundamentally flawed in its claims about its own nature and authority and in its teaching about the means of salvation.

A proper rejection of theological liberalism should therefore not be accompanied by a turning to the Church of Rome and its unbiblical teachings and practices. Rather, both theological liberalism and the unscriptural teachings and practices of the Church of Rome are contrary to the Bible and to the historic doctrines of the Church of England as a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic church.

The longing of Church Society is that all Anglicans, whether in England or elsewhere, would see and understand both the destructive nature of theological liberalism and the false nature, teachings and practices of the Church of Rome.

We grieve that the Church of England, along with our nation, has fallen so low in its spiritual and moral condition. We pray that God would pour out His Spirit on both church and nation.

We rejoice that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and we pray that the Church of England will return to full adherence to its doctrinal standards, acknowledging the supreme authority of the Bible as God's Word and seeking to shape its teaching and practices by what He has revealed.

The statement was agreed by the Council at its meeting on 4 November 2009.

Church Society exists to uphold biblical teaching and to promote and defend the character of the Church of England as a reformed and national Church. For further information visit www.churchsociety.org

Further information relevant to this statement can be found here.

By Robin G. Jordan

In one vision of the Anglican Church in North America the ACNA is primarily seen as a rescue operation. The ACNA offers an alternative ecclesiastical structure to which disaffected Episcopalians can flee from an increasingly liberal and heretical Episcopal Church and where they can find a safe refuge from the encroachment of modernism, postmodernism, and pluralism. This particular vision of the ACNA places little or no emphasis upon real evangelism and church planting. Its main concern is Episcopalians who are no longer well disposed to The Episcopal Church. Its principal focus is persuading such Episcopalians to leave The Episcopal Church and joined the ACNA. Its notions of starting a new church are limited to reconstituting a former Episcopal congregation or a large segment of one into a new ACNA church and to gathering smaller groups of former Episcopalians and enfolding them into an ACNA church.

In this vision church growth is seen in terms of numerical growth from former Episcopal congregations and former Episcopalians joining the ACNA. Those who embrace this vision like to point out that the ACNA is growing through the addition of new congregations while The Episcopal Church is declining. They generally downplay the fact that the new congregations are largely made up of the recently unchurched—former Episcopalians. The growth of the ACNA is principally due to the migration of churchgoers from one denomination to another, what is known as “transfer growth.”

This kind of growth cannot be compared to the kind of growth that the global South Anglican provinces have been experiencing. In these provinces the main concern is the segment of the general population that is not Christian and have never been churched. (This is an increasingly growing segment of the general population in Canada and the United States along with the formerly churched—those who were at one time churchgoers but now no longer regularly attend a church.) Their focus is upon reaching and evangelizing this population segment, discipling new believers, helping them to become mature Christians, equipping and releasing them for the work of gospel ministry, and enfolding them into new churches with the same focus—fulfilling the Great Commission. These provinces are not just throwing out a lifeline to Episcopalians drowning in one small backwater; they are braving the open seas to save all whom they can reach with the life preserver of the gospel, often at great danger to themselves.

While rescuing Episcopalians may be one of the ACNA’s subsidiary purposes, it is not its chief purpose. This purpose is articulated in its constitution, in Sections 1 and 2 of Article III.

1. The mission of the Province is to extend the Kingdom of God by so presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that people everywhere will come to put their trust in God through Him, know Him as Savior and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of the Church. The chief agents of this mission to extend the Kingdom of God are the people of God.

2. The work of the Province is to equip each member of the Province so that they may reconcile the world to Christ, plant new congregations, and make disciples of all nations; baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything commanded by Jesus Christ.

The danger in seeing the ACNA as primarily a rescue operation to Episcopalians is that those who adopt this view of the ACNA are at high risk of loosing sight of the central task of the Church—the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Rather than measuring the growth of the ACNA in terms of how many new congregations the ACNA can form from disaffected Episcopalians who have left The Episcopal Church or who can be persuaded to do so, leaders and members of the ACNA need to measure it in terms of gospel growth. They need to keep a close eye on “conversion growth.” This is growth arising from non-Christians becoming believers, accepting Christ as their Saviour and Lord and beginning a personal relationship with him. Conversion growth, however, is only one facet of gospel growth. They also need to keep track of how many converts are moving along the path from new believer to mature follower of Jesus Christ, how many have been equipped and released for gospel ministry work, and how many are engaging in that work, and how many people in each of these categories are being enfolded in new Great Commission churches. The data collected in relation to these critical indicators will give a much better picture of the ACNA’s growth and vitality than the number of former Episcopal congregations reconstituted as ACNA churches or the number of ACNA churches formed from groups of disaffected Episcopalians.

Relying upon The Episcopal Church as a source of new members for the ACNA has its drawbacks. Episcopalians are likely to bring a lot of unwanted baggage with them into the ACNA—attitudes, expectations and ways of thinking that may actually hamper or hinder the ACNA congregations in their efforts to spread the gospel and make disciples of unchurched people groups in Canada and the United States. This includes preconceived notions of how church is done. They have been immersed in an ecclesiastical culture that emphasizes the power of the sacraments over the need for personal conversion and faith, denigrates the authority of the Bible and the Anglican formularies, and fosters an anti-gospel and anti-evangelistic identity. Even conservative or orthodox Episcopalians have not escaped its influence.

Reaching and evangelizing the unchurched with little or no church background or previous churchgoing experience may be more challenging than gathering Episcopalians looking for a new church home and enfolding them into a new church. For the diocese it involves reorienting and reorganizing to serve the local congregation. For the local congregation it entails placing making disciples of Christ first and foremost above everything else, mobilizing all its resources to accomplish this one end, and paring away all groups, organizations, and programs that do not contribute to its accomplishment. For individual Christians means moving out of one’s comfort zone and mingling with non-Christians, becoming friends with them, and committing oneself to an ongoing relationship with them even if that relationship does not bear fruit in the form of a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and a commitment to follow him as his disciple.

The kind of growth that comes with faithfulness to the Great Commission is God-given growth. It is the kind of growth that endures for all eternity. It adds more living stones to the edifice that God himself is building—to that temple in which his Spirit dwells. It is this kind of growth for which we as Christians should always strive, going about the business of sharing the good news of Jesus Christ and making disciples as our Lord has commanded us to do and leaving the rest in God's hands.

http://acl.asn.au/help-and-encouragement-in-sharing-the-gospel/

[Anglican Church League] 7 Nov 2009--“Paul E. Little’s book How to Give Away Your Faith was first published in 1966, a few years before the popular evangelist was killed in a tragic car accident. Since his untimely death, his wife Marie has overseen two revisions of Little’s book (1988, 2008). It is sometimes described as ‘the classic guide to evangelism,’ perhaps because of the way in which the book addresses practical issues surrounding personal evangelism.”

– Trevin Wax offers some good reasons to dust off your old copy – or perhaps to get a revised edition. At The Discerning Reader.

Of course, Chappo’s Know and Tell the Gospel, written for Australian conditions, is essential reading!

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/11/religion-of-peace-and-gospel-of.html

[Anglican Curmudgeon] 7 Nov 2009--We are living in strange times. Black is said to be white, and white is proclaimed black, and the objective reality is lost in the scramble by each to charge the other with falsehood or bias.

The "religion of peace" makes more headlines these days than even the Catholic Church:

Al Qaeda publishes a circular on its favored Websites which urges Muslim jihadists everywhere to attack "simple targets", including "crusaders" (i.e., Westerners, whose countries are attempting the re-occupation of Muslim lands), with readily available weapons and explosives: get the Stratfor article (fascinating, but published only for subscribers) by email, free, from this link.

Not one week after Al Qaeda's urging jihadists everwhere to take up arms to maintain the purity of Islam, we get this: Fort Hood Muslim psychiatrist (see also this report) who admires suicide bombers guns down 12, and wounds 31. (One of the critically wounded has since died, so the tally is now 13 dead and 30 wounded.)

Earlier, a namesake of the Fort Hood terrorist murdered (fragged) two fellow officers.

Earlier still, an Islamic terrorist gunned down three people at the El-Al counter at the Los Angeles International Airport.

And just after that attack, a man calling himself John Allen Muhammad and his sidekick, Lee Malvo, terrorized the Washington D.C. area with sniper attacks that killed ten people and critically wounded another three. Their arrest prevented their plan to recruit more jihadists and train them in Canada for a mass attack they believed would bring down the Great Satan -- America. (Muhammad's execution is scheduled for next Tuesday, according to the link just given.)

And the attacks by Muslims against Christians are increasing to a level not seen before in modern times.

Meanwhile, the people who demand that they be included are all for exclusion....

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/11/5/former-tec-dioceses-welcome-congregations

[The Living Church] 7 Nov 2009--As two former Episcopal dioceses hold conventions this weekend, they are beginning to incorporate congregations from across the nation.

The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh will vote on welcoming Harvest Anglican Church, Homer City, Pa.; Church of the Transfiguration, Cleveland, Ohio; HolyTrinityChurch, Raleigh, N.C.; and St. James Church, San Jose, Calif.

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone) plans to receive St. Gabriel’s Anglican Church, Springdale, Ark., as a new mission station. It also will welcome two existing parishes: St. Matthias’ Anglican Church, Dallas; and Church of the Holy Spirit, Tulsa, Okla.

On Oct. 30, the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee went to court against St. Andrew’s Church, Nashville, which left the Episcopal Church in 2006 and has since announced its affiliation with the Diocese of Quincy (Ill.).

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin (Southern Cone) has welcomed three neighboring California parishes — St. Andrew’s in the Desert, Lancaster; St. David’s, San Rafael; and Santa Maria de Juquila, Seaside — and Jesus the Good Shepherd, Henderson, Nevada.

In the context of the Anglican Church in North America’s constitution [PDF], such an elastic definition of diocesan borders is a feature and not a bug.

“Congregations and clergy are related together in a diocese, cluster, or network (whether regional or affinity-based), united by a bishop,” the ACNA’s constitution says. “Dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) may band together for common mission, or as distinct jurisdictions at the sub-Provincial level.”

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_church_of_uganda_and_the_anti-homosexuality_bill/

[Global South Anglican] 7 Nov 2009--The Church of Uganda is studying the proposed “Anti-homosexuality bill” and, therefore, does not yet have an official position on the bill. In the meantime, we can restate our position on a number of related issues.

1. Our deepest conviction as the Church of Uganda is that, in Christ, people and their sexual desires are redeemed, and restored to God’s original intent. Repentance and obedience to Scripture are the gateway to the redemption of marriage and family and the transformation of society. (Position Paper on Scripture, Authority, and Human Sexuality, May 2005)

1.The House of Bishops resolved in August 2008 that “The Church of Uganda is committed at all levels to offer counseling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation, especially in our schools and other institutions of learning. The Church is a safe place for individuals, who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness, to seek help and healing.”

2.The Church of Uganda upholds the sanctity of life and cannot support the death penalty.

3.In April 2009, Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi said, “I am appalled to learn that the rumours we have heard for a long time about homosexual recruiting in our schools and amongst our youth are true. I am even more concerned that the practice is more widespread than we originally thought. It is the duty of the church and the government to be watchmen on the wall and to warn and protect our people from harmful and deceitful agendas.”

4.“Homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture.” (Resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops.) Homosexual behaviour is immoral and should not be promoted, supported, or condoned in any way as an “alternative lifestyle.” This position has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the House of Bishops and the Provincial Assembly of the Church of Uganda.

5.We cannot support the blessing of same-sex unions or the ordination of homosexuals (Resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops), and we will oppose efforts to import such practices into Uganda. Again, this position has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the House of Bishops and the Provincial Assembly of the Church of Uganda.

Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye

Provincial Secretary

Church of Uganda

P.O. Box 14123

KAMPALA

+256 772 455 129

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_121_4_Tinker.pdf

[Churchman] 6 Nov 2009--Introduction
Here is a modern day parable with apologies to Lewis Carroll.
As Alice was walking down the road, she saw, sitting high up on a fence, a strange looking creature rather like an egg.
‘How curious you look,’ she called up to the man. ‘What kind of person are you?’
‘My name,’ said the egg, ‘is Humpty Dumpty. And what, pray, is yours?’
‘Alice,’ said Alice. ‘And why do you sit so high up on that fence?’
‘My task is the protection of the truth of evangelicalism through the preservation of fellowship and peace between the people who live on either side of this fence.’
‘That is very interesting,’ said Alice. ‘Tell me, what exactly do you mean by evangelicalism?’
‘I mean all those from whatever country who agree on the basics of
Christianity, that God is sovereign, humanity fell in Adam, justification is
by grace through faith via the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Stuff
like that.’ Humpty sniffed and looked up to the sky. ‘Such childish questioning!’ he muttered to himself.
‘Curiouser and curiouser,’ said Alice. ‘I have never heard of these things. Perhaps you would like to explain them to me.’

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/11/05/remembering-b-b-warfield/

[The Gospel Coalition] 5 Nov 2009--158 years ago today Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield was born near Lexington, KY. He would go on to become the lion of Princeton—perhaps the greatest American theologian since Jonathan Edwards

Next year, September 2010, Crossway will publish the first “systematic theology” of Warfield, written by Fred Zaspel. The title will be The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Though Warfield himself never wrote a systematics, Zaspel’s work will be the next best thing.

I asked Zaspel if he would mind doing a guest post to remind us of Warfield’s significance. Enjoy.

http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=2&id=2711

[Ligonier Ministries] 5 Nov 2009--What does take to be a faithful servant? Archbishop Henry Orombi challenges us to remain faithful servants no matter the cost.[audio]

By Robin G. Jordan

It is frequently claimed that the ACNA Constitution and Canons prohibit the ACNA or the diocese or grouping to which a local congregation belongs, from seizing the church property of that congregation through litigation. If a local congregation does not like the direction in which the ACNA or the diocese is moving, it can leave the ACNA or the diocese, taking its church property with it. Congregations choosing to leave the ACNA will not face the kind of property litigation that congregations leaving TEC have faced. It is also argued that the threat of congregations leaving keeps the ACNA and its dioceses from moving in a too radical direction and obviates the need for any particular safeguards.

The ACNA Constitution and Canons, however, contain two loopholes that do permit a diocese or grouping to take a local congregation to court over ownership of church property and to prevent it from taking that property with it if it leaves the diocese. The first loophole is found in Article XII of the ACNA Constitution. Article XII states:

“All church property, both real and personal, owned by each member congregation now and in the future is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by each member congregation and shall not be subject to any trust interest in favor of the Province or any other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of this Province. Where property is held in a different manner by any diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved.”

Note carefully what the last clause states. “Where property is held in a different manner by any diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved.” This clause does not prevent a diocese from holding or taking church property into trust. Indeed it guarantees dioceses that have joined and may join the ACNA the right to continue to hold property in trust that they already hold in trust.

The second loophole is found in Canon I.6.6. The wording of this provision is identical to that of Article XII except for the addition of a new clause. What the clause does is amend the Constitution and its inclusion in the Canons is highly questionable. It is one of a number of examples where the Governance Task Force amended the Constitution by Canon although the Constitution makes no provision for its amendment in this manner. In its haste to ratify the Constitution and Canons the inaugural Provincial Assembly overlooked these violations of the Constitution. Canon I.6.6 states:

“All congregational property, real and personal, owned by a member congregation is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by the congregation and shall not be subject to any trust in favor of the Province or other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of the Church; neither may any Diocese assert any such claim over the property of any of its congregations without the express written consent of the congregation. Where property is held in a different manner by any Diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved.”

Under the provisions of the added clause a diocese or grouping to which a local congregation belongs is not actually prohibited from making a claim of ownership over church property of a local congregation. However, it must prove that the local congregation has at some point recognized that it has an interest in the property. For example, if the diocese loaned a local congregation the money to construct a new building, then it could require the local congregation to consent to its claim of part or full ownership of the property as condition of the loan. Litigation may be necessary to establish that the congregation is not encumbered by such a claim and has free title to the property.

The security that Article XII and Canon I.6.6 offer a local congregation in regards to the ownership of church property is a false one. Their provisions need amending or replacing. I wonder how many of the folks that rushed through the ratification of the Constitution and Canons would have done the same thing if they were buying a new house or a new car. I suspect that they would have wanted to examine the fine print in the contract and made sure that any needed changes were incorporated into the contract before they signed it.

The ACNA Constitution and Canons needed more work at the time they were ratified. There was talk of fixing them after their ratification So far it appears to have been just that—talk. Archbishop Bob Duncan’s comments about Article XII shortly before its ratification prompted laughter from the floor of the inaugural Provincial Assembly. The congregations in the ACNA did not realize it but the joke was on them.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/culture/a_new_anglicanism/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 3 Nov 2009--Just this past term I have had the great pleasure of co-teaching – with Professor Ashley Null, the renowned Cranmer scholar - a MA unit offered here at Moore College entitled ‘Anglican Identity’. In it we made careful study of the development of the English reformation and the works of leading figures like Fisher, Cranmer and Hooker.

A highlight was reading the moving testimony of Catherine Parr, last wife of Henry VIII, to her conversion to the gospel of justification by faith.

I was curious, however, as to why so few Sydney clergy thought this was a subject that might interest them, or that the study of the founding documents of our denomination might be well worth their while.

This was confirmed by casual conversations with Moore students. I asked them ‘how do you understand your identity as an Anglican?’ – and was met with baffled looks and shrugs. The denomination is a ‘good boat to fish from’, mostly, but there is (it seems to me) no great passion for Anglicanism itself and no great commitment to study its formularies and its history.

Perhaps it is because the international controversies have become wearisome and even a source of embarrassment. Perhaps it is because the denomination changes at glacial speed – and we in our time are addicted to change, even for its own sake. Perhaps we are also in the grip of the ‘lone ranger’ vision of the brave church planter, unencumbered by denominational vagaries. Perhaps the baby-boomer generation have so scrubbed away any outward signs of Anglican distinctiveness that it is hard to see what it is anymore.

But I was surprised that even the GAFCON movement, with its bold and remarkable vision for an global Anglican movement, has not caught the local imagination. It has been perceived as a political rather than a spiritual movement.

More than ever, we need to renew our vision of what it means to be an evangelical Anglican. My conviction is that not only is being evangelical the most authentic way of being Anglican – we’ve been saying that for years - but also that being Anglican is a great way of being evangelical.

How come?

http://acl.asn.au/acl-centenary-dinner-address/#more-2479

[Anglican Church League] 3 Nov 2009--I’ve been asked this evening to offer some account of the work of the ACL over the last 100 years. So I humbly put on my amateur historian hat – and amateur should be read in capital letters in light of present company – and I offer these reflections…

It has often been claimed that Sydney Diocese, with its pervasive and dominant conservative evangelicalism, is unique within the Anglican Communion – particularly within western Anglicanism. One of the chief questions that this situation raises is ‘how did this come to be?’

Well many dominant factors could be offered in response to this question. The evangelicalism of the early chaplains, the episcopates of Bishop Barker and Archbishop Mowll, Moore College… Now, these are all good answers but I’m going to argue tonight that any account of why this diocese is the way it is that does not give a significant place to the labour and influence of the ACL is a deficient account! In other words, one of the reasons the Sydney diocese is like it is today is because of the century long existence of this League.

My starting point in making this argument is the place of the diocese before the formation of the ACL. Synodical governance had been established more than half a century earlier than 1909 and since then a number of groups had formed around common causes to exercise influence in the decision making of the diocese. But from the 1880s onwards a series of events took place that caused alarm to many evangelicals in the diocese. A tractarian, Thomas Hill, was appointed principal of Moore College. The chasuble was introduced at Christ Church St Laurence and St James King Street. There was the cathedral reredos saga, as well as more churches introducing robed choirs, brass crosses and other ritualistic elements. These events indicated to the evangelicals a trend within the diocese towards ritualism. So when Archbishop Saumarez Smith died in 1909, an opportunity arose to consolidate the evangelical character of the diocese.

At this time, F. B. Boyce, the rector at Redfern, rallied hard to gain support for J. C. Wright. Wright was an evangelical who was at the forefront of a new movement in England, called the group brotherhood. This group set about rethinking the way evangelicals engaged in society. (The other likely candidate for archbishop was W.H. Griffith-Thomas but his popularity dived after a photograph circulated of him wearing a tie rather than a clerical collar – shocking attire for an archbishop I’m sure we all agree!!!)

Anyway, at about this same time, Boyce was the driving force behind the formation of a group to provide a unified evangelical voice within the diocese. This group was the Anglican Church League

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/communion/what_is_full_communion/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 3 Nov 2009--The Synod of the Diocese of Sydney passed the following motion in October 2009:

Synod –
(1) welcomes the creation of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under the leadership of Archbishop Bob Duncan and notes the GAFCON Primates Council’s recognition of the ACNA as genuinely Anglican and its recommendation that Anglican Provinces affirm full communion with the ACNA and –
(a) therefore expresses its desire to be in full communion with the ACNA, and
(b) furthermore, requests that Standing Committee seek to have a motion brought to the General Synod affirming that the Anglican Church of Australia be in full communion with the ACNA,
(2) welcomes Archbishop Duncan’s assessment that the recent Vatican offer of a Personal Ordinariate ‘will not be utilised by the great majority of the Anglican Church in North America’s bishops, priests, dioceses and congregations’ and urges all Anglicans to reject the Vatican’s proposal, and
(3) asks the General Synod Standing Committee to –
(a) bring the Anglican Covenant to the September 2010 General Synod in such a manner as to enable each diocesan synod to consider the document, and
(b) bring a motion to the General Synod noting the publication of the Jerusalem Declaration and to encourage its study as a means to Anglican identity and cohesion.

Bishop Duncan of the ACNA subsequently announced on 30 October:
The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) welcomes the affirmation from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney (Australia) that it is in full communion with the ACNA.
Of course the resolution of synod does not expressly state that the Diocese of Sydney is in full communion, but merely “expresses its desire to be in full communion.”

Why the fudge? Well the Diocese of Sydney is part of the Anglican Church of Australia, whose Constitution defines those with whom we are in communion.
This Church will remain and be in communion with the Church of England in England and with churches in communion therewith so long as communion is consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained in this Constitution.

However, at a practical level, what does full communion mean? It generally means that an ordained person can move from one church to another, without being re-ordained. By way of contrast, an Anglican minster would need to be re-ordained if he were to become a Roman Catholic priest, since the two churches are not in full communion.

Note: In order to hold a license in a diocese of the ACNA, the canons of the ACNA, however, require an Anglican minister from outside of the ACNA to subscribe without reservation to the Common Cause Theological Statement embedded in Article I of the ACNA constitution and accept its Anglo-Catholic position on episcopacy, its dilution of the authority of the historic Anglican formularies, and its establishment of John Henry Newman's ahistorical, fanciful approach to the Thirty-nine Articles as its norm for interpretation of this formulary.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=17214

[Anglican Mainstream] 3 Nov 2009--The calendar of the Brazilian Book of Common Prayer (LOCb) of the Diocese of Recife – and of the majority of evangelical churches in our country – registers today as the day in which we commemorate the Reformation. This year we celebrate 500 years of the birth of John Calvin, and we’re reminded of the fact that the Protestant Reformation of the 16th. Century was one of the most important chapters in the History of the Church, and that october 31st. 1517 was one of the most significant days since Pentecost. The protestant community, ever growing in Latin America owes its existence to the sacrificial work of missionaries in the 19th, and 20th, centuries, who were motivated by the conviction and message of the Reformers. The denunciation of and break with the “errors and superstitions” within Christendom, the affirmation of the supremacy of Holy Scripture – which all should have the freedom to read – the recovery of the apostolic message of salvation exclusively by Grace received through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and the universal priesthood of all believers, comprise a genuine treasure, valuable and non-negotiable.

Latin America, home on the one hand to traditional, nominal and syncretistic Christianity, is, on the other hand, a creedal continent. Its protestant component is almost entirely orthodox, and continues to believe that the errors and doctrinal distortions of non-reformed branches of the Church in the East and West remain unacceptable. We appreciate the spiritual suffering of Christians that live in the developed West, marked as it is by the destructive influence – both spiritual and moral – of revisionist Liberalism, and we affirm our solidarity with those Christians. In our continent, Liberalism was brought to us, principally from the Roman Church, via Liberation Theology. Of the six hundred thousand people who leave the Roman Catholic Church in Brazil each year, the vast majority do not become secular or join non-Christian religions, but, by the liberating experience of new birth, convert to Christ in reformed churches, in both traditional and Pentecostal contexts.

As Brazilian Anglicans, we look to the memory of the blood of the martyrs, to Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, and also to the example of those passionate pioneers, reformed missionaries in our country like our first bishop Lucien Lee Kinsolving. The crisis which Anglicanism currently faces will not be solved by returning to the other side of the river Tiber, but by crossing the bridge of the river Cam(bridge), to get back to the impassioned debates of the White Horse Tavern. We must become more, not less protestant. Reformation, yes: Rome, no! “Almighty Fortress is our God!”.

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/10/thirty-nine-articles-and-church.html

[The Ugley Vicar] 3 Nov 2009--Introduction

That the Thirty-nine Articles were designed to benefit both the church and the state by settling religious disputes is evident from the Royal Declaration of 1562:

Being by God’s Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governour of the Church, within these Our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace; and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or Questions to be raised, which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonwealth.

That is the Anglican ideal, based on the model of church and state conceived at the English Reformation. There are to be no disputations, altercations and questions. Instead there is to be unity and the bond of peace, in state and in church.

The nature of the Church

But what is the Church? Article XIX tells us:

THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

Notice first, the reference to the visible Church, as distinct from the invisible Church. The invisible Church is the company of faithful believers known only to Christ. And indeed the Westminster Confession of 1647 began its definition of the Church there:

The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect ... [emphasis added]

But of course the membership of the invisible Church is known only to God, and the Articles leave that aside, concentrating only on the visible. And what is visible is the preaching of the Word of God and the ministering of the Sacraments according to Christ’s commands. Where you have those, you have the Church.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11462

[VirtueOnline[ 3 Nov 2009--After Pope Benedict XVI's offences against the Jews and the Muslims, Protestants and reform-oriented Catholics, it is now the turn of the Anglican communion, which encompasses some 77 million members and is the third largest Christian confession after the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. Having brought back the extreme anti-reformist faction of the Pius X fraternity into the fold, Pope Benedict now hopes to fill up the dwindling ranks of the Catholic church with Anglicans sympathetic to Rome.

Their conversion to the Catholic church is supposed to be made easier: Anglican priests and bishops shall be allowed to retain their standing, even when married. Traditionalists of the churches, unite. Under the cupola of St Peter's.

The Fisher of Men is angling in waters of the extreme religious right.

This Roman action is a dramatic change of course: steering away from the well-proven ecumenical strategy of eye-level dialogue and honest understanding; steering towards an un-ecumenical luring away of Anglican priests, even dispensing with medieval celibacy law to enable them to come back to Rome under the lordship of the pope. Clearly, the well-meaning Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was no match for cunning Vatican diplomacy. In his cosying up with the Vatican, he evidently did not recognise the consequences. Otherwise he would not have put his signature to the downplaying communique of the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. Can it be that those caught in the Roman dragnet do not see that they will never be more than second-class priests in the Roman church, that other Catholics are not meant to take part in their liturgical celebrations?

Ironically, this communique impudently invokes the truly ecumenical documents of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission, which were worked out in laborious negotiations between the Roman Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Anglican Lambeth conference: documents on the Eucharist (1971), on church office and ordination (1973), and on authority in the church (1976/81). People in the know, however, recognise that these three documents, subscribed to by both sides at that time, aimed not at recruitment, but rather at reconciliation. These documents of honest reconciliation provide the basis for a recognition of Anglican orders, which Pope Leo XIII, back in 1896, with anything but convincing arguments, had declared invalid. But from the validity of Anglican orders follows the validity of Anglican celebrations of the Eucharist. And so mutual Eucharistic hospitality would be possible; in fact, intercommunion. A slow process of growing together of Catholics and Anglicans would have been the consequence.

However, the Vatican Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith quickly made sure that these documents of reconciliation disappeared in the dungeons of the Vatican. That's called "shelving". At the time, a confidential press release out of the Vatican cited "too much Küng theology" in them - in other words, a theological basis for a rapprochement between the churches of Rome and Canterbury.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091030/analysis-finds-converts-more-religiously-active-than-non-converts/index.html

[The Christian Post] 2 Nov 2009--Religious converts are more active in keeping basic commitments of their new faith than non-converts, according to a new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The analysis, released Thursday, found that those who switched faiths or joined a faith after being raised unaffiliated with a religion are more likely to say religion is very important to them; say that they are absolutely certain of their belief in God; attend religious services weekly; pray daily; share their faith and views on God weekly; and say there is one true faith.

More specifically, sixty-nine percent of converts say religion is very important to them, compared to 62 percent of non-converts. And 82 percent of converts say they are absolutely certain of their belief in God, compared to the 77 percent of non-converts.

When looking at specific activities, the Pew analysis found more significant gaps between converts and non-converts. Seventy percent of converts, for example, say they pray daily, compared to the 62 percent of non-converts, and 29 percent say they share their faith on God weekly while 20 percent of non-converts say the same. As for religious service attendance, 51 percent of those who switched faiths say they attend such services weekly while 44 percent report the same.

The new analysis is based on the findings of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Forum in 2007. The survey found that roughly half of all Americans had left the faith they were raised with for another faith or no faith at all, or have adopted a faith if they were not raised in one.

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009/11/01/religion/dpt-ordination110109.txt

[Daily Pilot] 2 Nov 2009--Anglican clergymen from as far away as Uganda and Newfoundland visited Newport Beach on Saturday to ordain a new bishop in the fledgling Anglican Church of North America.

Formed in 2008, the church is made up of congregations in the United States and Canada that have broken away from the Episcopal Church over differing views on homosexuality and the Scriptures.

The movement includes Newport’s St. James Church on Via Lido.

“This is an important, historical day for the whole church,” said Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church of North America, who presided over the incense-drenched ceremony at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church on Saturday. “You can see the excitement in the people today.”

William Thompson was ordained as the first bishop of the of the Diocese of Western Anglicans of the Anglican Church in North America during a three-hour ceremony filled with pageantry and song.

http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2009/11/john-stott-on-anglican-evangelical.html

[Theological Theology] 2 Nov 2009--This quote from John Stott in the 1980s continues the theme of Anglican Identity discussed in earlier postings. It reveals yet again why John Stott has remained for so many of us the real voice of Anglican evangelicalism throughout the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. There were points at which I found myself, reluctantly, in disagreement with this great leader, but on this matter I am in the most profound agreement.

First and foremost, by God's sheer mercy, I am a Christian seeking to follow Jesus Christ. Next, I am an evangelical Christian because of my conviction that evangelical principles (especially sola scriptura [Scripture alone] and sola gratia [by grace alone]) are integral to authentic Christianity, and that to be an evangelical Christian is to be a New Testament Christian, and vice versa. Thirdly, I am an Anglican evangelical Christian, since the Church of England is the particular historical tradition or denomination to which I belong. But I am not an Anglican first, since denominationalism is hard to defend. It seems to me correct to call oneself an Anglican evangelical (in which evangelical is the noun and Anglican the descriptive adjective) rather than an evangelical Anglican (in which Anglican is the noun and evangelical the adjective). (Quoted in R. Steers, The Inside Story, p. 191)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100015355/breaking-news-vatican-issues-clarification-of-anglican-plan-which-does-not-rule-out-ordaining-married-men/

[The Telegraph] 2 Nov 2009--The Vatican today issued a statement about its plans to create a personal Ordinariate for ex-Anglicans which discusses the possibility of ordaining married laymen on a case-by-case basis.

Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was seeking to quash speculation that the publication of the Apostolic Constitution had been held up by squabbles over the ordination of married men. Not true, he insists.

His statement makes clear that celibacy will be the norm for priests in the Ordinariate – but does not rule out the possibility of married seminarians becoming priests, so long as the local Ordinary, the bishops’ conference and the Holy See agree that an exception should be made. My reading of this document is that it does not completely close the door on the possibility of future married seminarians being ordained.

Here’s the press release containing the Cardinal’s statement in full. These things are difficult to interpret, so I’d be interested to hear what you make of it:

This Saturday--31st October 2009--is Reformation Day, and this Sunday--1st November 2009--is the Feast of All Saints (also known as the Feast of All Hallows, or Hallowmas) and the 457 th anniversary of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. To mark these occasions I am posting a series of articles on the Reformation and the 1552 Prayer Book.

http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_086_CranmersLiturgy.pdf

[Cross+Way] 30 Oct 2009--Through his liturgy Thomas Cranmer sought to reform the Church under the Word of God. He did not abandon all that had gone before but endeavoured to take what had become corrupted and transform it in accordance with the plain teaching of scripture.

In some places this meant small changes, in others dramatic. The key features of the 1552 Communion Service (in effect the Book of Common Prayer and the backbone of Common Worship Order 2 in Contemporary Language)were all derived from the teaching of scripture.

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_116_4_Wheaton.pdf

[Churchman] 30 Oct 2009--All Saints Day this year sees the 450th anniversary of the implementation of the Second Prayer Book of King Edward the Sixth as the standard liturgy of the Church of England. As far as this writer knows, there has been little concern in official circles to commemorate the occasion, possibly as the liturgical position it adopted (which remained largely unchanged and unchallenged by either the Elizabethan settlement of 1559 or the Restoration settlement of 1662) is not one which finds widespread favour in the Church of England today. This is sad in a day when so many clergy would claim to be evangelical and therefore should be underlining rather than undermining the theology which lies behind this book.

Cranmer had introduced his first revision of the Communion liturgy three years previously with the First Prayer Book of King Edward the Sixth. While this had been a big step forward in making the liturgy comprehensible to the masses (being entirely in English following the interpolation of an English section into the Latin mass the previous year), its theology was still mainly unreformed. As a result it had met with criticism both from Bishop Gardiner of Winchester, who saw little difference from the old forms, and Cranmerʼs fellow reformer Martin Bucer, who pointed out the many ways in which it fell short of expressing a clearly reformed position.1

For the purposes of this study it is best to simplify the issues by focusing on two main points which were highlighted in the 1552 revision. They are the question of what the minister should pray for when setting apart the bread and wine for their special use, and in what sense and on whose part there is a sacrifice in the service. The first relates to the role of the Holy Spirit in the communion service, and the second to the very nature of a sacrament—does it signify Godʼs grace reaching down to sinful man, or is it a human effort to offer something to God?

http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_086_Smallstepsbigleaps.pdf

[Cross+Way] 29 Oct 2009--There are a number of apparently small changes between the First and Second Prayer Books issued in the reign of King Edward VI (1549 and 1552). Though small some of these actually represent major steps in the reformation of the doctrine and liturgy of the Church of England.

At the Burial service whereas there had been a commendation of the soul of the dead person to God, in the new services there was simply a committal of the body to the ground (pending the general resurrection) and a declaration of the gospel promises with the expectation that those dying in faith would be with Christ. There is also no prayer for the forgiveness of sin, nor the provision for Holy Communion. Thus the errors of the medieval liturgy were finally removed (though they have crept back gradually over the years). What matters is whether a person dies in faith, our prayers for their future, requiem masses, and the invented sufferings of purgatory make no difference whatsoever.

‘Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.’

http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/documents/CAT056_RyleReformation.pdf

[Church Society] 30 Oct 2009--Our lot is cast in days when it is the fashion to despise everything that is old. There is a morbid readiness to throw aside all things which bear about them the least mark of antiquity, and to treat them with as little respect as last year’s almanacs or worn-out clothes. The only exceptions I can
think of are old lace, old coins, old pictures, and old wine! But, as a general rule, old opinions and old institutions are too often condemned as useless lumber, and shovelled out of the way, simply because they are old.

Now I am not one of those who object to all changes and reforms of old things. Nothing of the kind. I heartily thank God for most of the changes of the last half century, whether political, or social, or scientific, or educational. I should not be an honest man if I did not declare my conviction that on the whole they are great improvements. But there is one subject about which I cannot take up new views, and that subject is the English Reformation. I cannot agree with those who now tell us that the Reformation was a blunder—that the Reformers are overpraised—that Protestantism has done this country no good—and that it would matter little if England placed her neck once more under the foot of the Pope of Rome. Against these new-fangled opinions I enter my solemn protest. I want no departure from the old Protestant paths which were cast up by Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, three hundred years ago. In short, about the value of the English Reformation I want no new views. I unhesitatingly maintain that “the old are better.”

The subject of this paper may seem a very simple one. But I fear there is a strange amount of ignorance about it, and a widely-spread disposition to undervalue the Protestant Reformation. Time has a wonderful power of dimming men’s eyes, and deadening their recollection of benefits, and making them thankless and ungrateful. Three busy centuries have slipped away since England broke with Rome, and a generation has arisen which, like Israel under the Judges, knows little of the days of the Protestant Exodus, and of the struggles in the wilderness. Partly too, from a cowardly dislike to religious controversy, partly from a secret desire to appear liberal and condemn nobody's opinions, the Reformation period of English history is sadly slurred over both in Universities and Public Schools. It seems an inconvenient subject, and men give it the cold shoulder. Be the cause what it may, the Reformation period is too often shunted on a siding, and has not that prominent place in the education of young England which such a character-forming period most richly deserves. The whole result is that few people seem to understand either the evils from which the Reformation delivered us, or the blessings which the Reformation brought in. In short, many now-a-days regard the subject of Popery as a “bore.” They blindly persuade themselves that there is no mighty difference between Protestants and Papists at bottom. They say in their hearts, “A plague on both your houses! it is six of one and half a dozen of another.” To remove some of this ignorance, and let in a little light, is the simple aim of my paper. I want to make some of my countrymen understand that WE OWE AN ENORMOUS DEBT TO THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION.

http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/history/documents/CAL006_RyleReformers.pdf

[Church Society]30 Oct 2009--There are certain facts in history which the world tries hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world’s favourite theories, and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them. They are either cut dead as vulgar intruders, or passed by as tiresome bores. Little by little they sink out of sight of the students of history, like ships in a distant horizon, or are left behind, like a luggage-train in a siding. Of such facts the subject of this lecture is a vivid example:—“The Burning of our English Reformers; and The Reason Why they were Burned.”

It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth, or any opinions for which it is worth while to be burned. Yet, 300 years ago, there were men who were certain they had found out truth, and content to die for their opinions.—It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history, and to paint everything of a rose-coloured hue. A very popular history of our English queens hardly mentions the martyrdoms of Queen Mary’s days. Yet Mary was not called “Bloody Mary” without reason, and scores of Protestants were burned in her reign.—Last, but not least, it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which throws discredit on the Church of Rome. Yet it is as certain that the Romish Church burned our English Reformers as it is that we are assembled in St. James’s Hall. These difficulties meet me face to face as I walk up to the subject which I am asked to unfold today. I know their magnitude, and I cannot evade them. I only ask you to give me a patient and indulgent hearing.

After all, I have great confidence in the honesty of Englishmen’s minds. Truth is truth, however long it may be neglected. Facts are facts, however long they may lie buried. I only want to dig up some old facts which the sands of time have covered over, to bring to the light of day some old English monuments which have been long neglected; to unstop some old wells which the prince of the world has been diligently filling with earth. Give me your attention for a few minutes, and I trust to be able to show you that it is good to examine the question, “Why were our Reformers Burned?”

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_066_2_SydneyCarter.pdf

[Churchman] 30 Oct 2009--“We will have the Sacrament to hang over the high altar, there to be worshipped and only to be delivered to the lay people at Easter, and then only in one kind.” “We will have the Mass in Latin, as was before, and celebrated by the priest without any man or woman communicating with him.”1

These were the demands of the ‘Rebels in the West’ to Cranmer in 1549, and they illustrate clearly the medieval practice and teaching concerning the Eucharist which our Reformers strongly condemned. They also prove that the doctrine of the Holy Communion centred round two closely related questions. Are the Body and Blood of Christ literally present in,under or with the consecrated elements, or only present to faith? The Reformers definitely declared that they were ‘only present to faith’. Is the Lord’s Supper the commemoration of a finished sacrifice or is it itself a propitiatory material sacrifice? The Reformers taught the former and denied the latter.

Cranmer’s direct answer to these ‘Rebels’ was that in Apostolic times the bread had never been ‘reserved’ or ‘worshipped’ (i.e. made to “hang over the high altar”), but used by the faithful as a divinely appointed means of fellowship and communion. Instead of being delivered to the lay people only at Easter, which was their demand, Cranmer declared that “all learned and godly men have exhorted Christian people often to receive the Communion”, and that in the Apostles’ time people received it every day, and afterwards three or four times a week, and ‘commonly everywhere once a week’”.2 We find confirmation of this statement in Acts xx.7 in connection with St. Paul’s visit to Troas, that “upon the first day of the week the disciples gathered together to break bread”. And the Didache, at the end of the first
century, enjoins that “on the Lord’s day” all Christians should “come together and break bread”;3 although some scholars now hold that this refers to a Jewish fellowship meal rather than to the Lord’s Supper. In Justin’s Apology, a weekly celebration of the Eucharist is carefully described. We then get a gap in records for about two centuries, and it is from this latter period that Cranmer’s further remarks probably apply, when he adds: “When the Spirit of God began to wax more cold in men’s hearts, then their desire was not so hot to receive the Communion as before. And as the world waxed more wicked, the more people withdrew themselves from the Holy Communion. But to them that live godly it is the greatest comfort that in this world can be imagined”.4 And he also reminds them of an early decree ordering
that all Christians “must receive the Communion at least three times a year, at Easter,Whitsun, and Christmas”.

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_003_2_Taylor.pdf

[Churchman] 30 Oct 2009--It is now more than a thousand years since Bertram wrote his famous treatise “On the Body and Blood of the Lord,” against the rising error of the “Real Presence” and Transubstantiation; and unhappily the controversy still exists. Not only so, but the error is being steadily pressed forward by some of the clergy in the National Church, from whose standards it has been authoritatively rejected.

Bertram, or Ratram, lived in the ninth century. He flourished about the year A.D. 840, though probably the treatise mentioned was written a few years later—A.D. 845. His real name is supposed to have been Ratramnus, and this, with the prefix Beatus expressed thus, B. Ratramnus, was in process of time corrupted or abbreviated into Bertram.1 He was a priest or presbyter in the Church, and a monk of the monastery of Corbie in France, in the diocese of Amiens. His reputation for learning was great, and he wrote two or three other treatises besides that on the Lord’s Supper—viz., on “Predestination,” and on “The Manner of our Lord’s Birth,” &c. The century in which he lived was a very important and eventful one in many respects. It was one of the dark, if not the darkest, of the Middle Ages; exceeded in this respect only by the tenth, according to Baronius. The famous image controversy was at its height, and, unhappily, the images carried the day, kings and councils notwithstanding. It was the century when the forged decretals first saw the light, those huge impostures on which the Papal supremacy to a large extent founded and bolstered up its increasing and gigantic despotism. It was a century when the externals of religion, ceremonies and sacraments, were being multiplied—the form of godliness without the power thereof. The worship of, or superstitious veneration for, relics became quite a mania among the people, and the priests were nothing backward in encouraging them, as well as in supplying them with appropriate objects. “To see clearly,” says Mosheim, “the heights which ignorance and perversity reached in this age, it is only needful to consider its extravagant or, more properly, senseless fondness for saints, and for their dead bodies and bones.”

In this the greatest part of religion and piety was placed. Everybody believed that God would never be found propitious to those who had not secured some intercessor and friend among the inhabitants of heaven. Hence arose the rage for making, almost daily, new objects of deification. And the priests and monks were most successful in dispelling the darkness that concealed the wondrous deeds of holy men, or rather in fabricating the names and the histories of saints that never existed; so that they might have patrons enough for all the credulous and senseless people. . . . . The corpses of holy men, either brought from distant countries or discovered by the industry of the priests, required the appointment of new feast days, and some
variation in the ceremonies observed on these days. And as the success of the clergy depended on the impressions of the people respecting the merits and the power of those saints whom they were invited to venerate, it was necessary that their eyes and their ears should be fascinated with various ceremonies and exhibitions. Hence the splendid furniture of the temples, the numerous wax candles burning at mid-day, the multitudes of pictures and statues, the decorations of the altars, the frequent processions, the splendid dresses of the priests, and masses appropriate to the honour of the saints (vol. i. p. 571).

Such is the description of the ceremonialism and superstition of the ninth century, and it is sad and painful to reflect that it is just as applicable now, not merely to the unreformed Churches of Christendom, but also to many of the churches of England. Between the ceremonialism of the ninth and the ritualism of the nineteenth century there is not much to choose. The latter portion of the extract given above would suit admirably for a verbal and literal account of what is taking place in our very midst.

http://www.anglicanspread.org/?p=262

[SPREAD] 30 Oct 2009--Last Sunday I was privileged to be present at the consecration of the Revd Canon Dr Festus Yeboah-Asuamah as the new bishop of Sunyani Diocese in Ghana by the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of West Africa, Dr Justice O. Akrofi. The diocese has only existed since 1997 and the diocese from which it was formed had itself only been inaugurated in 1981, yet here were hundreds of joyful worshippers gathered in a new cathedral to welcome their next bishop. For over five hours there was a glorious weaving together of liturgy and music, moving seamlessly between solemnity and spontaneity, with a clear and challenging gospel focus in the Archbishop’s sermon.

Yet the day before in London, as Forward in Faith were debating Pope Benedict’s extraordinary offer to Anglicans of a Personal Ordinariate, the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Revd John Broadhurst told the conference plainly that ‘the Anglican experiment is over’. Well, maybe in England it is, but clearly not in Ghana!

Of course, the Pope’s initiative is a very sobering sign of Anglican failure. The Vatican has been at pains to point out that its action in offering Anglicans a continuing ‘space’ within the Roman Church is not an attempt to poach, but a response to persistent requests from those in distress and it seems clear from the lack of preliminary consultation with Dr Rowan Williams that confidence in his ability to lead the Anglican Communion has dwindled.

However, what my experience in Ghana illustrates is the truth which GAFCON has so powerfully articulated – that the failure of the Anglican Communion is not an intrinsic flaw in its fundamental theological vision, but a failure to be faithful to that vision. The Anglican experiment is in fact proving to be remarkably successful in many areas of the Global South, undergirded by that recovery of confidence in Evangelical Anglicanism so closely associated with John Stott and J I Packer – even if it may sometimes take liturgical forms which would not be entirely to their taste.

The Anglican Communion crisis is not about Anglicanism in itself, but a crisis of faithfulness. Failure to maintain Anglicanism’s doctrinal and moral integrity precipitated GAFCON and is the root cause of the Pope’s offer of the Ordinariate. As Bishop Broadhurst bluntly stated ‘Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues’.

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=5209

[Religious Intelligence] 30 Oct 2009--Membership and average Sunday attendance in the Episcopal Church have continued their downward spiral, statistics released by the church last week report.

Average Sunday attendance for the Episcopal Church’s domestic dioceses declined by three per cent from 2007 to 2008; with an additional 22,565 people missing from the pews last year. Average Sunday attendance for 2008 was 705,257.

The church’s membership, counted as active baptized members, also declined by three per cent, falling by 59,457 to 2,057,292. The rate of decline in attendance and membership also rose last year, with the 10-year rate of decline in attendance rising from 13 to 16 per cent, and the 10-year rate of decline in active membership rising from 10 to 11 per cent.

Fifty per cent of US Episcopal churches saw a decline in attendance last year, while only 35 per cent registered growth. The median average Sunday worship attendance in 2008 was 69.

For the first time the church’s income fell, with recorded “pledge and plate” income falling by 0.2 per cent.

Critics assert the numbers may be overstated as some dioceses have not recorded the secession of breakaway congregations. While the Diocese of San Joaquin recorded a membership drop of almost 8,000, or 77 per cent — reflecting the secession of a majority of its congregations, the Diocese of Los Angeles continues to carry St James Newport Beach’s 1,500 members on its books --- even though the congregation’s fight to quit has already taken the fight to the US Supreme Court.

At the autumn meeting of the Executive Council meeting, the Church’s two presiding officers declined to answer questions on membership.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6895501.ece

[Times Online] 30 Oct 2009--A row has broken out behind the Vatican walls over the "confusion" surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's opening to disaffected Anglicans, according to a papal biographer.

Andrea Tornielli, the biographer of several modern Popes including Pope Benedict, said that just over a week after its existence was revealed by the Vatican, the text of the Apostolic Constitution laying down the conditions for the creation of a new "Anglo-Catholic" section of the Church was still not ready for publication.

This was not because of translation problems but "something more serious", Mr Tornielli said. There was still debate behind the scenes over priestly celibacy, the "most sensitive point for public opinion".

When asked last week about admission into the Catholic Church of married Anglican priests under the new rules, Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, replied that requests would be judged "on a case by case basis".

It was left unclear however whether Anglican seminarians who were either married or who wished to get married before being ordained would also be admitted to the Catholic Church. The final text of the Apostolic Constitution is likely to "eliminate this ambiguity" by making clear that all trainee priests will be required to be celibate if they wish to go over to Rome, Mr Tornielli said.

The row has been exacerbated by the decision to disclose Pope Benedict's approach to Anglican traditionalists before the final text was ready, thus risking another of the "diplomatic gaffes" that have occasionally marked his pontificate so far.

"Authentic Anglicanism is a particular expression of Christian corporate life which seeks to honour the Lord Jesus Christ by nurturing faith, and also encouraging obedience to the teaching of God's written word, meaning the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New testaments. It embraces the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (published in the year 1571) and the Book of Common Prayer (the two versions of 1552 and 1662), both texts being read according to their plain and historical sense, and being accepted as faithful expressions of the teaching of the Scripture, which provides the standard for Anglican theology and practice."

If you have not yet read the offical GAFCON study document, The Way, the Truth, and the Life, I recommend that you read it. It is on the Internet in PDF format at: http://www.gafcon.org/images/uploads/gafcon_way_truth_life.pdf

I am taking a survey of Anglican churches in North America that use the classic Anglican Prayer Book—The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. If your church uses the 1662 Book of Common Prayer at any or all of its services and is located in Canada or the United States, Puerto Rico or one of the US territories, I would like to hear from you. Please leave your answers to the following questions in the comments section below.

• What is the name of your church?
• What is the name of its current pastor? Did he introduce the use of the 1662 Prayer Book? If not, who did?
• With which ecclesial body is it affiliated? If it is affiliated with the ACNA, please also give the name of jurisdiction and the cluster, diocese, district or network to which it belongs.
• What is its location?
• What is its email address?
• Which forms of service—Morning Prayer, Litany, Holy Communion, Evening Prayer, Baptism, Confirmation, etc.—from the 1662 Prayer Book does it use and at what services?
• What other worship aids—service books, hymnals, songbooks—does your church use with the 1662 Prayer Book?
• Further comments.

Please note that churches using the Reformed Episcopal Church’s new Prayer Book—The Book of Common Prayer of 2005—are not using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer but a service book that combines elements taken from both the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1928 Prayer Book. The result is a service book that differs significantly in its theology from the 1662 Prayer Book. The purpose of this survey is to identify churches that actually use the classic Anglican Prayer Book and to learn more about them and their use of the 1662 Prayer Book. Thank you for helping with this survey.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/we_see_them_and_embrace_them/

[Anglican Church League] 28 Dec 2009--“On the final night of the 2009 Synod, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney has passed a resolution embracing the new Anglican province, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

In the words of the resolution, ‘Synod welcomes the creation of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under the leadership of Archbishop Bob Duncan and notes the GAFCON Primates’ Council recognition of the ACNA as genuinely Anglican and its recommendation that Anglican Provinces affirm full communion with the ACNA. Synod therefore expresses its desire to be in full communion with the ACNA.’…”

– Russell Powell writes at SydneyAnglicans.net.

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=5193

[Religious Intelligence] 28 Oct 2009--A mass exodus of overseas Anglo-Catholics in response to last week’s announcement of a proposed Anglican enclave within the Roman Catholic Church is unlikely, a review of the Communion by The Church of England Newspaper finds.

While overseas leaders acknowledge that individual Anglicans may take advantage of the provisions of the proposed Apostolic Constitution for the creation of “Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering the Catholic Church,” no diocese or province is set to quit the Anglican Communion for Rome.

In jurisdictions where traditional Anglo-Catholics predominate: the Provinces of Central Africa, Tanzania, West Africa, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, the West Indies; the Australian dioceses of The Murray and Ballarat and the US dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin---individuals may take up the Vatican’s offer, but no institution is likely to follow. Nor is the offer likely to divide North American conservatives into rival Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical camps, its leaders tell CEN.

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/10/goodbye-evangelicalism-hello-church-of.html

[The Ugley Vicar] 28 Oct 2009--Recently this blog has addressed two issues which, at first glance, may seem to be unrelated. One is the state of Evangelicalism. The other is the significance of the Vatican’s recent manoeuvres vis à vis the Anglican Communion. As far as Evangelical Anglicans are concerned, however, these issues are much more closely connected than might appear.

On the one hand, the divisions within Evangelicalism raise the question of exactly what is an ‘Evangelical’. On the other hand, the Vatican’s offer may, as a Guardian editorial observes, leave Evangelicals isolated within the Church of England, since, unlike the Anglo-Catholics, they have “nowhere to go”. Certainly one scenario being envisaged is that this development will purge at least some of the ‘bigots’ from the Church, leaving the ‘unbigoted’ majority free to introduce women bishops and, ultimately, to embrace same-sex relationships.

If this scenario is correct, then the prospects within the Church of England for the Evangelicalism of our forebears is bleak. Open Evangelicals, virtually by definition, favour the ordination of women and will welcome the consecration of women bishops. But as a ‘party’ they are defined less by their adherence to traditional Evangelical doctrines than their sitting light to them.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Evangelical response has been to close ranks and, at the same time, to look for help in the form of overseas links, such as those forged in the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Some even hope that such support would extend to episcopal oversight. Should it be offered and accepted, however, this would not merely isolate Conservative Evangelicals within the Church of England but might effectively remove them from it.

One is mindful of the lines from Sir Henry Newbolt’s poem:

The Gatling’s jammed and the colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.

The situation seems beyond desperate. Our Evangelical unity is gone. Rome, which was for so long the antithesis of English Christianity, is offering English Christians a home. Have we not reached the time warned of by Bishop JC Ryle?

... so long as the Church of England sticks firmly to the Bible, the Articles, and the principles of the Protestant Reformation, so long I advise you strongly to stick to the church. When the Articles are thrown overboard, and the old flag is hauled down, then, and not until then, it will be time for you and me to launch the boats and quit the wreck. (Needs of the Times, in Holiness)

Maybe. But perhaps in Ryle’s warning lies the key to our problem. I may be quite mistaken, but desperate times call for desperate measures —and these seem to be desperate times. In the light of this, therefore, I want to suggest the abandoning of the Anglican Evangelical project and the consideration of an alternative.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091020/research-young-adults-skeptical-of-the-bible-but-open-to-learn/index.html

[The Christian Post] 26 Oct 2009--New research shows that the younger generation in America is less likely to view the Bible as accurate or sacred, but at the same time they are slightly more interested in gaining knowledge about the Bible than older generations.

Based on five separate studies conducted between 2006 and 2009, The Barna Group found that only two out of three Mosaics (adults between the ages of 18 and 25) view the Bible as a sacred or holy book. By comparison, 81 percent of Busters (ages 26 to 44), 89 percent of Boomers (ages 45 to 63), and 90 percent of elders (ages 64 and above) consider the Bible as sacred.

Younger adults also are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all the principles it teaches. Only 30 percent of Mosaics and 39 percent of Busters strongly agree that the Bible is “totally accurate” in all the principles it teaches. The majority of Elders, however, strongly agree with the statement.

Mosaics also are more likely to hold universal religious beliefs than their elders. The majority of Mosaics believe the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts while only 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders feel the same way.

David Kinnaman, who directed the analysis of the research, commented that the “central theme” of young Americans’ approach to the Bible is skepticism. Young adults question the Bible’s history and relevance to their lives, leading them to reject the idea that the Bible contains everything they need to live a meaningful life.

“This mindset certainly has its challenges but it also raises the possibility of using their skepticism as an entry point to teaching and exploring the content of the Bible in new ways,” said Kinnaman, president of The Barna Group.

Yet despite the skepticism, Mosaics express the most interest in improving their Bible knowledge. Nearly one in five (19 percent) of 18- to 25-year-olds say they would like to improve their Bible knowledge.

By comparison, only 8 percent of Elders, 12 percent of Boomers, and 14 percent of Busters want to learn more about the Bible.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-archbishop-attacks-pope-for-anglican-overtures-1808993.html

[The Independent] 26 Oct 2009--The former archbishop of Canterbury criticised the Roman Catholic Church this weekend, branding as "inexcusable" its failure to consult leading Church of England clergy on the Pope's invitation for Anglo-Catholics to join him.

Lord Carey gave a cautious welcome to the proposals from Rome but said he was "distressed" that his successor had received just two weeks' notice of them.

He said that the move by Pope Benedict XVI could help clergy in the Church of England who were unhappy with the ordination of women bishops.

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/10/24/sc-distances-itself-from-episcopal-bodies

[The Living Church[ 26 Oct 2009--The voting margins were huge on Saturday as a special convention of the Diocese of South Carolina approved four resolutions [PDF] supported by the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mark Joseph Lawrence.

A fifth resolution addressed diocesan convictions on sexuality, without explicit implications for the diocese’s relations with the Episcopal Church.

As Bishop Lawrence urged approval of the resolutions, he acknowledged criticisms that they have attracted: “The resolutions that are before us, while seeming tepid to some, have to others the feel of haste, even imprudence.”

Those disagreements are clear even within the diocese. Only about six miles from the convention’s meeting site, Christ Church in Mt. Pleasant, is St. Andrew’s Church, which already has begun a 40 Days of Discernment program to decide whether it will separate from the Episcopal Church and, by extension, from the diocese.

In mid-September, the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina said the diocese “teeters on the edge of schism” from the Episcopal Church.

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1067

[EV News] 26 Oct 2009--The Global South Bishops have released the below statement about the Pope's offer to accept disaffected Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church.

Statement:

A Pastoral Exhortation to the Faithful in the Anglican Communion

1. We, under-shepherds of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ, bring greetings to the faithful in the Anglican Communion. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. For in his great love for us, we are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (Ephesians 2: 19-22).

2. The Vatican announcement on Apostolic Constitution (Note of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering the Catholic Church) gives us an occasion in making the following pastoral exhortation.

3. We welcome Pope Benedict XVI’s stance on the common biblical teaching on human sexuality, and the commitment to continuing ecumenical dialogue.

4. At the same time we believe that the proposed Anglican Covenant sets the necessary parameters in safeguarding the catholic and apostolic faith and order of the Communion. It gives Anglican churches worldwide a clear and principled way forward in pursuing God’s divine purposes together in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. We urge churches in the Communion to actively work together towards a speedy adoption of the Covenant.

5. In God’s gracious purposes the Anglican Communion has moved beyond the historical beginnings and expressions of English Christianity into a worldwide Communion, of which the Church of England is a constitutive part. In view of the global nature of the Communion, matters of faith and order would inevitably have serious ramifications for the continuing well-being and coherence of the Communion as a whole, and not only for Provinces of the British Isles and The Episcopal Church in the USA. We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.

6. As Primates of the Communion and guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith and order, we stand in communion with our fellow bishops, clergy and laity who are steadfast in the biblical teaching against the ordination of openly homosexual clergy, the consecration of such to the episcopate, and the blessing of homosexual partnerships. We also urge them, as fellow Anglicans, to continue to stand firm with us in cherishing the Anglican heritage, in pursuing a common vocation, in expressing our unity and common life, and in maintaining our covenanted life together.

7. In the closing words of the Anglican Covenant: With joy and with firm resolve, we offer ourselves for fruitful service and binding ourselves more closely in the truth and love of Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory for ever. Amen.

“Now may the God of Peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.” (Hebrews 13.20, 21)


25th October 2009

Global South Primates Steering Committee:

Chairman: The Most Revd Peter J. Akinola, Nigeria

Vice-Chairman: The Most Revd Emmanuel Kolini, Rwanda

General Secretary: The Most Revd John Chew, Southeast Asia

Treasurer: The Most Revd Mouneer Anis, Jerusalem and the Middle East.

Members:

The Most Revd Stephen Than Myint Oo, Myanmar

Bishop Albert Chama, Dean of Central Africa

Filed: 26 Oct 2009

Related article:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/6386836/developing-nation-anglicans-decline-popes-offer/
Developing nation Anglicans decline pope's offer - Reuters

http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-anglican-v.html

[Theological Theology] 23 Oct 2009--So far I have tried to argue that Anglicanism is catholic, Protestant and Reformed. The formularies reveal a doctrinal base that values continuity with faithful Christians in all ages, the critical distinctives of the Protestant reformation and the emphases within that reformation exemplified in the theology of men like Bucer, Bullinger and Calvin. But perhaps it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that authentic Anglicanism is evangelical. After all, most historians date the evangelical movement from the revivals associated with John Wesley and George Whitefield. Isn't it rather anachronistic to speak of the foundations of authentic Anglicanism as 'evangelical'?

In one sense the answer to that question must of course be 'yes'. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that there is such a thing as an authentically Anglican evangelicalism which takes seriously both the Anglican theological and ecclesiastical heritage and the evangelical emphasis on the necessity of personal conversion and not simply church membership or attendance. It would be flying in the face of history to suggest there is no such a thing as authentic Anglicanism that is unambiguously evangelical.

That part of the evangelicalism of the eighteenth century which saw its heritage as indubitably Anglican arguably involved a return to reformation distinctives such as sola scriptura, the centrality of cross of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc. (all affirmed in the Anglican formularies), a repudiation of the growing formalism and sacramentalism that was emerging in certain quarters even a century before the Oxford Movement, and a new prominence to the issue of one's personal standing before God that did not necessarily negate or ignore the critical corporate dimension of the Christian life.

It is surely beyond dispute that there has been a long succession of evangelical leaders within the Church of England over the past three centuries. These men and women (Selina, Countess of Huntington comes to mind), did not want to leave the Church of England. They valued the doctrine of the Articles and the way the the gospel found expression in the Book of Common Prayer. It is certainly true that some did leave in time (Wesley himself being the preeminent example) but most saw no need, since in neither their doctrine nor their practice were they departing from authentic Anglicanism. Great hymn writers, powerful patrons of mission and social reform, great, perservering preachers of the gospel were used by God to breathe life into the established church.

http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/press/latestpress.php

[Reform] 21 Oct 2009--Revd Rod Thomas, chairman of Reform, makes four points as an initial response to today’s announcement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster:

“Anglicans concerned about protecting the basic Christian faith need not go to Rome, because we now have the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA (UK)) which holds together those who want to stop the orthodox faith being eroded. We can remain Anglican. Furthermore, the FCA Primates have recognised that problems with episcopal oversight are arising here in the UK. They have expressed the hope that these will be solved locally, but if not, they are willing to step in.”

“This development highlights the need for robust legislative provision to cater for those who cannot agree to women bishops, such as that recently suggested by the Revision Committee.”

“If priests really are out of sympathy with the C of E’s doctrine (as opposed to the battles we are having over women’s ministry and sexuality), then perhaps it is better they make a clean break and go to Rome. However, when they do, they will have to accommodate themselves to Rome’s top-down approach to church life, whereas the C of E has always stressed the importance of decision making at the level of the local church.”

“It is illusory to pretend that this development is an outcome of ecumenical dialogue. It illustrates the difficulties the C of E faces and the need for stronger leadership, rather than the ‘softly softly’ approach so far taken to those holding liberal views who are splitting the church.”

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/10/richard-bewes-bad-and-good-news-of-50.html

[The Ugley Vicar] 21 Oct 2009--And our own operation needs to be kept razor sharp, if it is to make any lasting contribution to the general scene. Years back, while I was CEEC chairman, we invited Nick Page of Radio 2 to interview on video David Hope, former Bishop of London. The video was played at one of our larger conferences. At one point, Nick put the question, “Bishop, would you agree that anglican evangelicals would do well to take into their account and thinking the findings and emphases of the various other viewpoints within the Church; Catholic, Liberal and so on?”

The bishop’s reply was interesting. “Not at all,” he remonstrated. “Right now you evangelicals are not nearly evangelical enough. You seem, if anything, to be departing from your earlier roots. What has happened to your doctrines – and to your preaching of them? And why are you slipping from your Quiet Times? What has happened to your prayer meetings and to your former great missionary drive? We need you to be faithful to your own true evangelical identity if you are to have a hope of challenging and building the rest of us in the church!”

My long-time next-door neighbour John Stott puts it in a different way. Every generation of Gospel men and women, he insists, has to go through the same operation repeatedly – namely to fight afresh all over again for the unchanging apostolic truths that remain the platform for the church, in every age and crisis that it inevitably faces; we cannot opt out.

Note: Richard Bewes' own blog, Pocket Bible Thoughts with Richard Bewes, can be found at http://www.richardbewes.com/.

By Robin G. Jordan

Note: The following description of the state of Anglicanism and evangelicalism in the Anglican Church in North America began as a comment written in response to Dr. Mark Thompson's series, "What does it mean to be Anglican?" However, it proved too long a comment so I am posting it here and emailing a copy to Dr. Thompson.

The use of the terms “Protestant” and “Protestantism” are not particularly encouraged in the ACNA. Anglicans, we are told, are not Protestants. They are “Reformed Catholics.” Anglicanism is not a form of Protestantism. It is a form of “Reformed Catholicism.” The late Peter Toon revived the terms “Reformed Catholic” and “Reformed Catholicism” and popularized them. The Caroline divines and the Non-Jurors had originally used these terms. The Scottish Episcopal Church had experimented with the use of “Reformed Catholic” in the nineteenth century but abandoned it in favor of “Protestant Episcopal.” To the Scots “Reformed Catholic” was too close to “Roman Catholic.”

To understand current developments in the ACNA, it is helpful to put them in historical perspective.

The General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church adopted a revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles in 1801 and ordered that the revised Articles should be bound up with the Book of Common Prayer in all future editions. The Articles had their opponents in the Protestant Episcopal Church from the outset. In 1799 the following resolution was brought to the floor of the General Convention: "Resolved, That the articles of our faith and religion as founded on the Holy Scriptures are sufficiently declared in our Creeds and our Liturgy as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, established for the use of this Church, and that further articles do not appear necessary." The House of Bishops voted against the resolution. The Bishops favored adopting the Articles. When the revised Articles were adopted in 1801, the clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church, however, were not required to formally subscribe to the Articles, as were the clergy of the Church of England. What binding force upon belief that they might carry was left to the conscience of the individual.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries we encounter criticism of the Thirty-Nine Articles from two quarters of the Protestant Episcopal Church—the Anglo-Catholics and the Broad Church liberals. Among the criticisms of the Articles were that they were foreign to the genius of the Church of England. “The adoption of such a detailed system of theology was contrary to her history and traditions.” Or the Articles were no longer relevant for today and represented “a watermark of a previous tide.” The latter view of the Articles crops up in a modified form in the Common Cause Theological Statement now embedded in Article I of the ACNA Constitution.

The Anglo-Catholics and the Broad Church liberals disliked the Thirty-Nine Articles because they did not support their beliefs and practices. While Broad Church liberals pointedly refused to take notice of the Articles, Anglo-Catholics, following the example of John Henry Newman, reinterpreted them. E. J. Bicknell’s The Thirty Nine Articles, which drew upon Newman’s fanciful ahistorical reinterpretation of the Articles, exercised a broad influence in North America. Gillis J. Harp attributes the widespread ignorance of Episcopalians of the Articles and their Reformation heritage to the influence of Anglo-Catholicism in the Protestant Episcopal Church.

In the nineteenth century the Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England agitated for the abolition of the Thirty-Nine Articles. They were not successful. In the Protestant Episcopal Church they had much greater success. In 1925 the General Convention under the denomination’s then Anglo-Catholic leadership passed a resolution dropping the Articles from the Prayer Book. They, however, were eventually thwarted by the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

As I previously noted, the Anglo-Catholics were not the only school of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church that were opposed to the Thirty-Nine Articles. So were the Broad Church liberals. The views of the two schools increasingly converged and influenced each other. Their views of the Articles continue to exercise influence upon how a large segment of the ACNA sees the Articles. An influential self-identified “evangelical” and “Calvinist” in the ACNA informed me that the Church had outgrown the sixteenth century theological views expressed in the Articles. Contemporary Anglicans have a different understanding of the issues addressed in the Articles.

In 1976 and 1979 the General Convention voted to relegate the Articles to the historical documents section of the new Prayer Book. The official position of the Episcopal Church was that the Articles were a thing of the past. By this time “Protestant” had been dropped from the Episcopal Church’s name.

In the newly formed ACNA the position of the Thirty-Nine Articles is not much better. The Articles are presented as belong to the past but containing some principles of genuine Anglicanism. Newman’s reinterpretation of the Articles in a Roman direction is established as normative for the ACNA.

The problem with the ACNA is not so much that Anglo-Catholics dominate the organization as it is that many of those who define themselves as “evangelicals” sit very loosely to the Protestant and evangelical beliefs and principles that historically have distinguished classical evangelical Anglicanism. In Guarding the Holy Fire Roger Steer asserts that “traditional evangelical Anglicanism” disappeared from the Protestant Episcopal Church by 1900. Former Bishop of South Carolina C. FitzSimmon Allison drew to the attention of the late Urban T. Holmes in a personal communication that there were at that time few genuine evangelicals in the Episcopal Church and that those who called themselves “evangelicals” were “liberal low churchmen.” Terry Holmes himself noted in the essay in which he refers to this observation that “English Evangelicalism” has never gained much acceptance in the United States. The essay was published in 1981. Most of what passes for “evangelicalism” in the ACNA may owe more to contemporary popular evangelicalism in North America and the charismatic renewal movement in the 1970s than to classical evangelical Anglicanism.

The ACNA does have a number of pastors who studied in Reformed seminaries or who were Reformed pastors before they were reordained in the ACNA. The ACNA also has a couple of influential theologians, J. I. Packer and Bishop John Rodgers, known for their classical Reformed theology. However, the opinions of Packer and Rodgers are now suspect for the recent positions that they have taken.

“Evangelicalism” in the ACNA has sunk to such a low state that a pastor who takes an Anglo-Catholic position on a number of key issues that divide Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals can represent himself as an “evangelical” and others will defend his description of himself.

The Trinity Episcopal for Ministry contributed to the revival of evangelicalism in the Episcopal Church in the 1970s. In recent years TESM, however, has focused upon helping its students to develop what TESM describes as a “Biblical theology,” whether they are Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, evangelical, or “mere Christian.” In his description of an evangelical Anglican identity its present dean names Lancelot Andrews who is hardly a sterling example of classical evangelical Anglicanism.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer as an Anglican formulary does not fare any better in the ACNA. In the seven clause of the Common Cause Theological Statement the 1662 Prayer Book is identified as “a” doctrinal and disciplinary standard for Anglicans—one of a number of standards that Anglicans recognize. It forms only a part of the worship standard for Anglicans “with the Books which preceded it.” The latter are not identified. The clause itself is open to interpretation as including the 1637 Scottish Liturgy and the pre-Reformation medieval service books. The resulting standard is very nebulous.

The first American Prayer Book of 1789 was something of a paradox. Its compilers adopted many rationalistic changes or simplifications. They dropped the Benedictus from Morning Prayer and the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis from Evening Prayer and replaced them with psalms. Yet at the same time they adopted the eucharistic liturgy of the Scottish Non-Jurors, a rite that had no previous basis in the popular practice of Anglicans in North America. With the 1789 Prayer Book the American Prayer Book began to diverge from the 1662 Prayer Book in its theology, a divergence that became more pronounced with each addition to the American Prayer Book and particularly with the 1928 Prayer Book, the first major revision of the American Prayer Book. The office for the institution of incumbents that was added to the American Prayer Book in 1804 expressed a “High Anglican view of holy orders” that the Ordinal did not articulate. The service was studded with words and phrases that did not appear elsewhere in the American Prayer Book; for example, presbyter, sacerdotal relation, rector, rails of the altar, apostolic succession, and holy eucharist. It reflected a desire to revive the Caroline and Nonjuror heritage of Anglicanism. The 1892 Prayer Book restored the Prayer Book canticles. What few other changes that it introduced were far less significant than the far-reaching and even radical changes that the 1928 Prayer Book made in the American Prayer Book. These changes reflected the American taste for variety, greater emphasis on the Church Year, and preoccupation with medieval tradition. The 1928 Prayer Book represented a “drastic repudiation of post-reformation standards.” With its adoption Episcopalians in the United States “unhesitatingly parted company with conservative Anglicans in other lands.” What many people do not realize was that the 1928 Prayer Book was not only more Anglo-Catholic than its predecessors in its theology but it was also more liberal. This is the Prayer Book that the late Peter Toon and the Prayer Book Society promoted as the classic Anglican Prayer Book, not the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. While proponents of the 1928 Prayer Book will not admit it, the 1928 Prayer Book paved the way for the 1979 Prayer Book, setting a precedent with its extensive changes.

The 1928 Prayer Book is far from a local adaptation of the 1662 Prayer Book as it has sometimes been portrayed. The Protestant Episcopal Church developed its own Prayer Book tradition and that tradition has been imported into the ACNA where the two most commonly used service books are the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books.

In 2005 the Reformed Episcopal Church, a Common Cause Partner and founding entity of the ACNA adopted a new Prayer Book. This book was purportedly based upon the 1662 Prayer Book. The book, however, incorporates so much material from the 1928 Prayer Book that its theology departs significantly from that of the 1662 Prayer Book. The Solemn Declaration of the Anglican Mission in the Americas states that all alternative rites and forms adopted by the AMiA must conform to the doctrine of the 1662 Prayer Book. In 2006 AMiA and the Prayer Book Society jointly published a service book for trial use in AMiA congregations. The services in the book were described as contemporary English forms of the services of the 1662 Prayer Book. However, they owed more to the 1928 Prayer Book than to the 1662. In 2008 the AMiA and the Prayer Book Society jointly published a second service book for the use of AMiA congregations and other Anglicans. The compilers of this book dropped any pretense that its services were from the 1662 Prayer Book. Neither book, however, meets the AMiA’s own doctrinal standards. More recently Forward in Faith North America adopted a resolution urging its member congregations to use the 1549 and 1928 Prayer Books and the missals developed for use with these two service books.

The Initial Report of the ACNA Task Force on the Prayer Book and Common Worship has not been circulated openly or widely but rather has been released to only select individuals. This is not surprising for the ACNA that did not make public its provisional constitution and canons until they were adopted and only gave interested parties a fortnight to make suggestions and comments regarding proposed amendments to the provisional constitution and a proposed set of canons.

In addition giving a token place at best to the Anglican formularies, the ACNA constitution takes the Anglo-Catholic position that the “historic episcopate” is an essential part of the Church. In 1886 the Anglo-Catholic dominated House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church adopted the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral that took a similar position. The ACNA Canons contain language highly suggestive of Anglo-Catholic views of apostolic succession, ordination, and the sacraments. The ACNA Canons require unreserved subscription to the seven clauses of the Common Cause Theological Statement embedded in Article 1 of the ACNA Constitution as condition of membership, recognition as a diocese or diocese-in-formation, partnership in ministry, ordination, licensure, and election to the episcopate.

In the ACNA Constitution the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration is relegated to the Preface. It is no longer included in the ACNA’s definition of Anglican orthodoxy, which are now limited to the seven clauses of the Common Cause Theological Statement. More recently Philip Ashey, Chief Operating Officer of the American Anglican Council, a Common Cause Partner and a founding entity of the ACNA, announced that Archbishop Peter Jensen had charged the AAC with the formation of a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in North America. As Ashey envisioned the FCA in North America, it would function as a “ministry partner” of the ACNA—principally as an auxiliary of the ACNA in areas without an ACNA presence. Under the provisions of the ACNA Canons to become a ministry partner of the ACNA an entity must subscribe without reservation to the ACNA Fundamental Declarations (the Common Cause Theological Statement). Ashey’s vision of the FCA is not that of the Global Anglican Future Conference Statement or the GAFCON Theological Resource Group as set forth in Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today.

In the ACNA conservative evangelicals are viewed in some quarters as a disruptive “fringe element.” Their exclusion from the ACNA is regarded as essential to peace and unity within the ACNA. They are portrayed as “ultra-Protestants” and “hyper-Calvinists”—even the more moderate conservative evangelicals.

Members of the ACNA who are conservative evangelicals keep a low profile. Those with whom I am acquainted became members of the ACNA when the jurisdiction to which they belonged joined with the other Common Cause Partners to form the ACNA. They are not particularly happy with the theological direction in which the ACNA is moving but remain a part of the ACNA for pragmatic reasons. Some hope that the ACNA can be reformed from within; others see no viable alternative to the ACNA.

http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-anglican-iv_19.html

[Theological Theology] 20 Oct 2009--Anglicanism is both genuinely catholic and unambiguously Protestant. But what type of Protestantism is embedded in the Anglican formularies — Lutheran, Reformed or Anabaptist? It is well-known that Cranmer and his contemporaries began their journey in Reformation theology by avidly reading the banned works of Martin Luther in the early 1520s. They were captivated by Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone and his insistence on the final authority of Scripture alone. They welcomed the alternative explanation of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist that Luther provided for them — the idea of sacrifice could be jettisoned and so could transubstantiation without denying a real presence.

What is more, the influence of Melanchthon, Luther's off-sider and, just as importantly, a humanist scholar, continued to grow over the next few decades. Cranmer corresponded with Melanchthon, with whom he shared a humanist education, both before and after Luther's death in 1546. Melanchthon became one of the elder statesmen of the continental Reformation, a man of great intellect with a long history of engagement with different strands of the Reformation. He did not have the same strident manner as Luther and was at least willing to listen to others. Did Lutheranism, largely mediated through the person of Philip Melanchthon, continue to shape the English church of Edward VI and Elizabeth I?

The evidence suggests that as time went on others would have a more decisive influence on the English Reformers. As Cranmer's reforming agenda came into the open during the reign of Edward VI, Martin Bucer, a Reformed theologian who had at one time mentored Calvin, was invited to take up the post of Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. Bucer was asked to comment on the first prayer book of Edward VI, the 1549 edition. Cranmer's mature theology continued to embrace justification by faith alone, but his understanding of the sacrament modified under the influence of the Swiss reformers. Bucer's De Regno Christi was an attempt to put forward an agenda for reform and though it was never officially sanctioned (it was published in Basle rather than in England) Bucer's personal influence on Cranmer and the other key players in the Edwardian Reformation was considerable.

However, it was to be Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli's successor in Reformed Zurich, who was to make the most significant contribution as the English Reformation matured. Bucer did not travel to England but many English refugees travelled to Zurich during the Marian persecutions. When they returned, they brought Bullinger's writings with them. His Decades, collections of sermons expounding a rich pastoral theology, became required reading by all curates in Elizabethan England. Bullinger's sermons presented in an easily digestible form the essence of Reformed theology. His explanation of the authority and efficacy of the Word of God was particularly helpful. He was a principal author of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) with its insistence that 'the preaching of the word of God is the word of God'. His distinctive development of the notion of covenant would be particularly influential in the century that followed.

http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-anglican-iii.html

[Theological Theology] 20 Oct 2009--The Anglican inheritance in both doctrine and church practice is irrevocably tied to the cause of the Protestant Reformation. For all its insistence that it is genuinely catholic, that it was not another church set up as an alternative to that existing at the time but rather the true church reformed, the English church from which worldwide Anglicanism has grown was unambiguously Protestant. It embraced the Reformation doctrines of Scripture, salvation and the church. The five solas, solus Christus, sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura, and soli Deo gloria, all find expression in the Anglican formularies and are expounded in the book of homilies. The antagonism of Catholic apologists during the Elizabethan period and ever since is not simply directed to the Anglican rejection of papal primacy but also and primarily to Anglican doctrine which it sees as incompatible with the emphases of the Roman church.

Ever since at least the early seventeenth century there have been attempts to suggest true Anglicanism is not really Protestant and that aligning the English church with the continental Reformation is a mistake. Revisionist accounts of the origins of Anglicanism have glossed over the way in which, in both doctrine and practice, the English Reformers sought to align their church with the Reformation churches on the continent.

However, in more recent years even unsympathetic scholars of the Reformation have been willing to concede Anglicanism's basic Protestantism. It rejected the notion of a magisterium that stood alongside Scripture as an authority for Christian faith and life. It rejected a sacerdotal understanding of priesthood and Christian ministry. It rejected purgatory, the cult of the virgin and the use of images in worship. It clothed its clergy in a surplice rather than priestly robes (though strong voices from within its ranks argued that even this should be dispensed with).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherhowse/6350660/The-pious-pelican-on-the-Bible-page.html

[The Telegraph] 20 Oct 2009--George Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went hunting one day in 1621 and an arrow from his crossbow wounded a gamekeeper, who later died. Abbot was distressed; his enemies rejoiced; and others declared him a "man of blood", whose functions as a bishop were thereby suspended.

William Laud, a future Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to be consecrated bishop by him, and a group of women who got in the way of his coach in the street in Croydon mocked him with the cry: "You had best to shoot an arrow at us." The crisis was resolved by James VI issuing a dispensation. Ever after, on Tuesdays, the day of the accident, Abbot in penance abstained from the meat pies that he liked to eat.

This memorable incident in the life of a stern and learned man illustrates the human background to a truly outstanding event in English history: the publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible in 1611.

That was the year Abbot had become archbishop. He had also been one of the 50 translators of the 1611 Bible – a member of the "company" (or committee as we'd say) responsible for putting into English the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the book of Revelation.

A magnificent Jacobean almshouse, Abbot's Hospital, that George Abbot founded still stands at the top of the High Street in Guildford, Surrey, opposite Holy Trinity church where he is buried. The seven couples and 12 single people who live at the hospital plan a double celebration in 2011: for their founder and the 400th year of the English Bible.

This is one of hundreds of events being co-ordinated by a new body called the 2011 Trust. Time is running short: it's only 440 days away, nearer than the Olympics.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/legal-challenge-brewing-over-holy-communion-row-20091018-h2yo.html

[The Sydney Morning Herald] 20 Oct 2009--The Sydney Anglican Archbishop, Peter Jensen, is facing a legal challenge over his church's decision to break with the national church and permit apprentice ministers to give Holy Communion.

The highest court of the Australian Anglican Church, the Appellate Tribunal, has been convened to decide on the contentious issue of whether church law allows deacons or church workers to preside over the Lord's Supper, a duty exclusively performed by ordained priests and bishops.

Eight diocesan bishops from Wangaratta, Bathurst, Bunbury, Riverina, Rockhampton, Grafton, North Queensland and Willochra, and 20 clergy and laity from 13 dioceses around the country outside of Sydney have applied for a legal ruling.

By Robin G. Jordan

“It is important to remember that the direction of the province that is envisioned will be under the Common Cause Partnership, and for this reason, we must look primarily to the wording of Theological Statement agreed upon by Common Cause some time ago. There are some slight differences in wording and emphasis in that document from the final statement that came out of the Jerusalem meeting. Suffice it to say that Anglo-Catholics in the future will continue to regard the 1662 Prayer Book, the 39 Articles, liturgical practices, and the Councils of the patristic church just as the Oxford Movement did under Pusey, Keble, and Newman, our fathers in the faith.”

The preceding words of Bishop Jack Iker from an interview he gave on July 11, 2008 ran through my head as I was reading Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group’s exposition of the Jerusalem Statement. Bishop Iker describes the differences in wording and emphasis between the Common Cause Theological Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration as “slight.” But is that really the case?

A comparison of the two statements points to substantial differences between them. The GAFCON Theological Resource Group’s exposition of the Jerusalem Statement removes any doubt about these differences.

The ACNA was formed as a response to the GAFCON Primates’ call for a new province in North America. The Jerusalem Declaration set forth what GAFCON recognizes as the basic tenets of Anglican orthodoxy. One might expect that the ACNA would receive and affirm the Jerusalem Declaration as its definition of Anglican orthodoxy. However, the ACNA in embedding the Common Cause Theological Statement in Article I of its constitution made that statement its definition of orthodox Anglican belief and practice. The ACNA relegated its affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration to the Preface of the constitution.

The Common Cause Theological Statement lays considerable emphasis upon the “historic episcopate,” which it describes as “an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.” We find nothing like clause 3 of the Common Cause Theological Statement in the Jerusalem Declaration nor in the GAFCON Theological Resource Group’s exposition of that declaration. Indeed such notions fall into what the Theological Resource Group identifies as secondary matters and adophora.

The Common Cause Theological Statement takes a different view of the first seven general councils of the undivided Church from that of the Jerusalem Declaration. The Jerusalem Declaration only mentions the first four—those which the GAFCON Theological Resource Group notes deserve a special place of honor because “at these Councils…debates about the teaching of Scripture on God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit were settled in a way which has been embraced by Christians from all traditions in all generations.” It further notes that there are some exceptions such as the Monophysite churches of the East that have never accepted the Definition of Chalcedon. [Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 33]

The Common Cause Theological Statement does not give as large a place to the Anglican formularies, to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the 1661 Ordinal annexed to it, and the Thirty Nine Articles of 1571, as does the Jerusalem Declaration. The 1662 Prayer Book is identified as “a” doctrinal and disciplinary standard for Anglicans—one of a number of standards that Anglicans recognize. It forms only a part of the worship standard for Anglicans “with the Books which preceded it.” The latter are not identified. The clause itself is open to interpretation as including the 1637 Scottish Liturgy and the pre-Reformation medieval service books. The resulting standard is very nebulous. On the other hand, the Jerusalem Declaration upholds the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as “a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.” The reason that 1662 Prayer Book remains such a standard, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group stresses, is “because the principles it embodies are fundamentally theological and biblical.” The liturgies of the 1662 Prayer Book enable those taking part in them “to think in true and biblical ways about God and about their life as his people.” [Ibid., p. 47] The Theological Resource Group goes on to point to the reader’s attention:

“Translation and local adaptation are not just contemporary responses to our own needs—they are envisioned in the Book of Common Prayer itself.”[Ibid.]

After giving a example of a change that is not in continuity with the Book of Common Prayer and one that is, the Theological Resource Group draws attention to a second key principle of revision, that of mutual accountability within the Anglican Communion. They stress:

“The further removed a proposed liturgy may be from the 1662 Prayer Book, the more important it is that it should be the subject of widespread evaluation throughout the Communion.” [Ibid.]

The place that the Jerusalem Declaration gives to the 1662 Prayer Book is not the place that a number of the Common Cause Partners forming the ACNA give to the classic Anglican Prayer Book. The REC adopted a new Prayer Book in 2005, purportedly based upon the 1662 Prayer Book. However, it incorporates so much material from the 1928 Prayer Book that its theology departs significantly from that of the 1662 Prayer Book. The AMiA’s Solemn Declaration of Principles states that all alternative rites and forms adopted by the AMiA must conform to the doctrine of the 1662 Prayer Book. The AMiA has produced two service books for the use of its congregations. Both books fail to meet this requirement. More recently FIFNA adopted a resolution urging its member congregations to use the 1549 and 1928 Prayer Books and the missals developed for use with these two service books.

The Common Cause Theological Statement’s position on the Thirty-Nine Articles is that while the Articles may contain some authentic Anglican principles, they essentially belong to the sixteenth century. The Common Cause Theological Statement adopts as the norm for the interpretation of the Articles John Henry Newman’s nineteenth century reinterpretation of the Articles “in a Roman direction.” [The Way, the Truth, and the Life: Global Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future, p. 97] In contrast to clause 7 of the Common Cause Theological Statement, clause 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, “We uphold the Thirty-Nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.”

The GAFCON Theological Resource Group, after noting that the Articles, alongside the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, have long been recognized as the doctrinal standard of Anglicanism, stress:

“The Clause should not be interpreted to suggest an equivalence of the authority of the Articles with the authority of the Scripture. The authority of the Articles comes from their agreement with the teaching of the Scripture….The Articles make no attempt to bind the Christian mind or conscience more tightly than Scripture does on matters of doctrine and Christian living. However, acceptance of their authority is constitutive of Anglican identity (my emphasis).” [Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 35]

The Theological Resource Group further draws to the reader’s attention:

“In recent years, some member churches of the Anglican Communion have dispensed with assent to the Articles, presenting them as mere ‘historical documents’ or relics of the past. Not coincidentally, these same churches include the ones which have abandoned historic doctrinal and moral standards. For other churches, the Articles have formal authority but they have been neglected as a living formulary. The Jerusalem Declaration calls the Anglican church back to the Articles as being a faithful testimony to the teaching of Scripture, excluding erroneous beliefs and practices and giving a distinctive shape to Anglican Christianity (my emphasis). [Ibid., p. 36]

Anglo-Catholic reinterpretation and even outright rejection of the Thirty-Nine Articles is not particularly surprising since the Oxford Movement was a counter-Reformation movement. However, a number of ACNA clergy and members who identify themselves as “evangelical” take the position that the English Reformers were wrong on a wide range of issues. The Articles are portrayed as outdated and irrelevant to the twenty-first century Church. Conservative Evangelicals like myself who hold to the biblical and Reformation theology of the Anglican formularies are dismissed as a “fringe element.”

With the exception of the representatives of the REC and the APA, the participants in the Common Cause Round Table that drew up the Common Cause Theological Statement came from a TEC/PECUSA background. The PECUSA, while it had adopted a revision of the Articles had never required clerical assent to its provisions. In 1925 Anglo-Catholics and Broad Church liberals joined together in an attempt to remove the Articles from the American Prayer Book but were thwarted by the PECUSA constitution. The Articles were relegated to the historical documents section of the American Prayer Book with the adoption of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The REC at the time the Common Cause Theological Statement was drawn up had long drifted from the Protestant and Evangelical principles of its founders. The APA is a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic ecclesial body. It would subsequently drop out of the Common Cause Partnership.

The considerable differences between the Common Cause Theological Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration and the remarks of ACNA leaders like Bishop Iker indicate that the direction that the Common Cause Partnership envisions for the ACNA is not the same as the direction of GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Some North American Anglicans may argue that the ACNA is an independent organization and may therefore chart its own course. This, however, is the argument that TEC and the ACoC have been making. It is their disregard for their fellow Anglicans that has in part been the cause of the crisis that has torn the fabric of the Anglican Communion.

The substantial differences between the Common Cause Theological Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration point to the need for the formation of a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in North America that is independent of, and not subordinate to, the ACNA. In Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group define the nature of a “Confessing” Fellowship:

“The Fellowship has the character of a renewal movement. Like other renewal movements, the Fellowship intends to work within the global Anglican Communion. The Statement makes it clear that the Fellowship ‘is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion,’ and it does not claim to be the sole representative of true Anglicanism.” [Ibid., p. 37]

The Theological Resource Group goes on to explain:

“The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is ‘confessing’ in the sense of confessing the gospel, the faith of Christ crucified. It is confessional in the sense of affirming, as authoritative, the rule of faith found in the historic Creeds and Councils, and in the classic formularies of the Church of England—the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Prayer Book and the Ordinal—all of which claim to be in accordance with Scripture, and all of which may be ‘proved’ by Scripture. The Jerusalem Declaration is itself confessional in form, with brief statements of principle and half of its clauses referring to existing authorities. [Ibid., pp. 37-38]

The Jerusalem Declaration is further identified as the basis of governance for the Fellowship, deriving its authority from its conformity with the teaching of Scripture. [Ibid., p. 38]

In Phil Ashey’s recent announcement of the formation of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in North America, however, the FCANA was presented as functioning as an auxiliary to the ACNA, and subscribing without reservation to the Common Cause Theological Statement—a vision far removed from that of the GAFCON Statement.

Note: All page references are from Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, A Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration; supplemented by The Way, the Truth, and the Life: Global Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future; prepared by the Theological Resource Group of the Global Anglican Future Conference; edited by Nicholas Okoh, Vinay Samuel, and Chris Sugden, and published by The Latimer Trust. The book is available from Amazon.com on the Internet at: http://www.amazon.com/Being-Faithful-Nicholas-Dikeriehi-Okoh/dp/0946307997/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255123036&sr=1-4

I am taking a survey of Anglican churches in North America that use the classic Anglican Prayer Book—The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. If your church uses the 1662 Book of Common Prayer at any or all of its services and is located in Canada or the United States, Puerto Rico or one of the US territories, I would like to hear from you. Please leave your answers to the following questions in the comments section below.

• What is the name of your church?
• What is the name of its current pastor? Did he introduce the use of the 1662 Prayer Book? If not, who did?
• With which ecclesial body is it affiliated? If it is affiliated with the ACNA, please also give the name of jurisdiction and the cluster, diocese, district or network to which it belongs.
• What is its location?
• What is its email address?
• Which forms of service—Morning Prayer, Litany, Holy Communion, Evening Prayer, Baptism, Confirmation, etc.—from the 1662 Prayer Book does it use and at what services?
• What other worship aids—service books, hymnals, songbooks—does your church use with the 1662 Prayer Book?
• Further comments.

Please note that churches using the Reformed Episcopal Church’s new Prayer Book—The Book of Common Prayer of 2005—are not using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer but a service book that combines elements taken from both the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1928 Prayer Book. The result is a service book that differs significantly in its theology from the 1662 Prayer Book.

The purpose of this survey is to identify churches that actually use the classic Anglican Prayer Book and to learn more about them and their use of the 1662 Prayer Book. This includes new church plants in their early stages, meeting in a private home or other non-traditional setting. In conducting this survey, my intention is NOT to ascertain individual devotional practices or to start a discussion on the strengths and weakness of a particular service book or related topics but to obtain a picture of what churches are using the 1662 Prayer Book and how they are using it. Thank you for helping with this survey.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/churchlife/can_we_crack_the_bible_study_problem/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 16 Oct 2009--There is a problem in congregational life that I have spent the last twenty years trying to solve.

It is: “How can we organise things so that husbands and wives with kids can be actively involved in Bible study together?”

It is a real problem because:

• fairly shortly after children arrive husbands and wives are separated in Bible study- the wife may go to one group and her husband another, but never together as someone has to be home to look after the kids, and you just get used to ministering in separate fields

• it is easy for one member of the marriage to just withdraw from Bible study while the other continues. In our minds we think “this is just while the kids are young”, but I have seen that once removed from regular small group meeting, it is very hard to get re-involved later on.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091014/runaway-teen-convert-to-be-returned-to-ohio/index.html

[The Christian Post] 16 Oct 2009--Runaway teen convert Rifqa Bary will be returned to her home state of Ohio, Florida and Ohio judges decided Tuesday.

Bary, 17, will be turned over to foster care once she arrives in Ohio, according to the Orlando Sentinel. Both state judges agreed after weeks of discussion that the teen, who ran away to Florida for fear of being physically harmed by her Muslim parents for converting to Christianity, is under the jurisdiction of Ohio.

But before Florida state relinquishes custody of Bary, Florida circuit Judge Daniel Dawson required her parents to provide documents that prove they are legal residents in the United States. Bary’s temporary guardian raised concern that if the teen is staying illegally in the United States then she could be sent back to Sri Lanka where her family is originally from.

John Stemberger, the teen’s attorney, said Rifqa’s immigration status is “very critical” because his client fears being killed, harmed or placed in an insane asylum if she is sent back to Sri Lanka given that her conversion has been made public to the world.

Earlier, Bary said her parents had threatened to send her back to Sri Lanka after they found out she had become a Christian.

http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1215

[The Institute on Religion & Democracy] 16 Oct 2009--The Rt. Reverend Michael James Nazir-Ali, the 106th Bishop of Rochester, spoke at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC on Tuesday, October 13, 2009. The discussion with Bishop Nazir-Ali, “Apostasy, Blasphemy, and Other Sharia laws in the Modern World,” was part of the Hudson Institute’s fall series, Lifting the Theocratic Iron Curtain: Examining the Application of Muslim Blasphemy and Apostasy Rules in the Contemporary World. And who better to speak about the dangerous situation of a largely secular, indiscriminately multicultural western world confronted with by Islam, a system of belief that exploits multiculturalism while having nothing but contempt for the concept, than the man who has earned the title of “most courageous man in Britain,” for his willingness to speak out about the threat of radical Islam?

Bishop Nazir-Ali was born in Pakistan to a family that had converted from Islam. He was educated at the University of Karachi; Ridley Hall Theological College and Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University; St. Edmund Hall College, Oxford; as well as doing further study at the Australian College of Theology and Harvard Divinity School. Nazir-Ali was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1976, worked in Karachi and Lahore, and then was consecrated Bishop of Raiwind Diocese in West Punjab. At the time he was the youngest bishop in the Anglican Communion.

When his life was threatened by radical elements in Pakistan, then Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie brought him to England. He served as the Assistant to the Archbishop, and then as the General Secretary of the Church Mission Society. In 1994 he became the first non-white diocesan bishop in the Church of England when he was consecrated as the Bishop of Rochester. He was also the first Asian religious leader to serve as a member of the House of Lords. On September 1, 2009, Bishop Nazir-Ali, who describes himself as “evangelical and catholic,” resigned his Bishopric to devote his time to advocacy for the persecuted church around the world.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=83359

[Church Times] 16 Oct 2009--Supporters f women bishops have expressed shock at a decision by the revision committee for the draft legislation not to go further down the route of a statutory code of practice. Traditionalists say that the change of direction proposed does not go far enough.

The General Synod voted in July 2008 for “special arrangements”, embodied in a statutory code of practice, to be drawn up by the legis­lative drafting group.

The Bishops supported the motion by 28 to 12; the Clergy by 124 to 44; and the Laity by 111 to 68 (News, 11 July 2008). The full Synod had its first consideration of the draft legislation last February, and voted to commit it to a revision com­mittee of the Synod.

The committee, chaired by the Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, said in a statement last week that it had received nearly 300 submissions, including 100 from Synod members.

I am taking a survey of Anglican churches in North America that use the classic Anglican Prayer Book—The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. If your church uses the 1662 Book of Common Prayer at any or all of its services and is located in Canada or the United States, Puerto Rico or one of the US territories, I would like to hear from you. Please leave your answers to the following questions in the comments section below.

• What is the name of your church?
• What is the name of its current pastor? Did he introduce the use of the 1662 Prayer Book? If not, who did?
• With which ecclesial body is it affiliated? If it is affiliated with the ACNA, please also give the name of jurisdiction and the cluster, diocese, district or network to which it belongs.
• What is its location?
• What is its email address?
• Which forms of service—Morning Prayer, Litany, Holy Communion, Evening Prayer, Baptism, Confirmation, etc.—from the 1662 Prayer Book does it use and at what services?
• What other worship aids—service books, hymnals, songbooks—does your church use with the 1662 Prayer Book?
• Further comments.

Please note that churches using the Reformed Episcopal Church’s new Prayer Book—The Book of Common Prayer of 2005—are not using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer but a service book that combines elements taken from both the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1928 Prayer Book. The result is a service book that differs significantly in its theology from the 1662 Prayer Book. The purpose of this survey is to identify churches that actually use the classic Anglican Prayer Book and to learn more about them and their use of the 1662 Prayer Book. Thank you for helping with this survey.

http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-anglican-ii.html

[Theological Theology] 14 Oct 2009--I have suggested that authentic Anglicanism is Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical and Reformed. But what do we mean when we say that Anglicanism is truly 'Catholic'?

The term 'Catholic' is open to considerable misunderstanding. Almost five centuries of use to distinguish the Roman church from evangelical Protestantism has made it difficult for many to understand it apart from these institutional overtones. To suggest that a Protestant denomination might be 'Catholic' seems like a betrayal of its distinctiveness or, at best, ecclesiological confusion. One is either Catholic or Protestant, certainly not both together. This is at least part of the popular Protestant unease with retaining the word 'Catholic' to describe the church in contemporary translations of the Creeds.

In addition, since at least the nineteenth century, the term has been used to describe an emphasis within certain strands of Protestantism which has re-centred Christian corporate life on the sacraments, priesthood, notions of apostolic succession, and the like. In this way 'Catholic' describes one tradition within Anglicanism (alongside, and in certain tension with, evangelical and charismatic traditions). One is either Catholic or Evangelical, certainly not both together. A century or more of tension between the catholic and evangelical traditions within Anglicanism has made it difficult for some to accept the word 'Catholic' as an appropriate description of authentic Anglicanism.

http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-does-it-mean-to-be-anglican-i.html

[Theological Theology] 14 October 2009--To many, perhaps too many, the answer to this question is probably 'Who cares?' In a post-denominational age, Anglican identity might be an interesting historical question but it hardly has relevance for contemporary Christian living. What is more, fearing denominationalism, some would prefer to abandon all talk of Anglicanism. Denominations can become idols, can't they?

Critics insist that, whatever the rhetoric, evangelicals have simply surrendered to the fragmentary and fragmenting spirit of the age. We have become myopic — focussed on our own small circle of friends and acquaintances who form the local congregation. In the end this is just one more expression of the rampant individualism which has unravelled Western society more generally — it's just on a slightly larger scale. There is little sense of belonging to anything larger than, or having responsibilities that extend beyond, those I can see around me each Sunday (or whatever day you meet).

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091009/landmark-study-nearly-1-in-4-people-is-muslim/index.html

[The Christian Post] 14 Oct 2009--Nearly one out of every four persons in the world today is Muslim, according to the results of a comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries.

Though estimates on the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely in the past, from one billion to 1.8 billion, the new study by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life puts to rest the uncertainty, pinning the number of Muslims of all ages living in the world today at 1.57 billion.

The study also revealed more clearly how Muslims are distributed in the world, noting that more than 60 percent of the global Muslim population is in Asia and about 20 percent is in the Middle East and North Africa.

Not surprisingly, the Middle East-North Africa region was found to have the highest percentage of Muslim-majority countries, with more than half of the 20 countries and territories in that region having populations that are approximately 95 percent Muslim or greater.

But the study also revealed that the world’s minority Muslim populations are often quite large. India, for example, has the third-largest population of Muslims worldwide. And China has more Muslims than Syria, while Russia is home to more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/communion/the_marginalisation_of_scripture/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 14 Oct 2009--At an Induction Service the other night, the acting rector made a comment that struck me “For us Anglicans, the reading of the Bible aloud in church is a very special moment”.

It got me thinking of a lecture given by Oliver O’Donovan in April this year, “The Reading Church: Scriptural Authority in Practice” which was a reflection on the clause in the Jerusalem Declaration that said--

We believe that the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God written and to contain all thinking necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense with respect for the church’s historical and consensual reading.

O’Donovan rightly noted that very few people have commented on these words. And, introducing his book of theological reflections on the homosexual crisis in our Church, (A Conversation Waiting to Begin: the Churches and the Gay Controversy’ SCM Press, 2009) he does just that in his usual, profound, if somewhat difficult to follow, way.

But it was the concept of the place of the reading of Scripture in church that got me. It can be easily be overwhelmed by the other elements: the music, the singing or, even more likely in our culture, the preaching. In fact, preaching the word of God, explaining the Bible, or giving a sermon (what ever it is called) is important but it is not quite the same as hearing God’s word read in the middle of a congregation gathered.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6872027.ece

[Times Online] 14 October 2009--The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for “unsustainable” air-freighted food to be replaced gradually by homegrown produce from thousands of new allotments.

In an interview with The Times, Dr Rowan Williams said that families needed to respond to the threat of climate change by changing their shopping habits and adjusting their diets to the seasons, eating fruit and vegetables that could be grown in Britain.

He said that the carbon footprint of peas from Kenya and other airfreighted food was too high and families should not assume that all types of food would be available through the year. Dr Williams called for more land to be made available for allotments, saying that they would help people to reconnect with nature and wean them off a consumerist lifestyle.

The Archbishop was accused, however, of threatening the livelihoods of a million families in sub-Saharan Africa, who depended on exports of fresh produce to Europe.

And the profits of the food importers who mark up the cost of the fresh produce exported from outside of Europe. Among the benefits of vegetable gardening in an allotment is a reduction in food costs during a time of economic recession and a healthy form of exercise for otherwise sedentary Britains. When my family lived in the UK in the 1950s, vegetable gardening in allotments was commonplace. Folks not only raised vegetables but also chickens and rabbits in their allotments. They chatted with their neighbors in the adjoining allotments. They competed to see who could grow the largest vegetables.

This sermon is the fourth and final sermon in a series of four sermons on the liturgy of the Church of England that Charles Simeon preached before Cambridge University in November 1811.

Sermon IV: The Ordination Service

They have well said all that they have spaken: O that there were such an heart in them! Deuteronomy 5:28, 29

THE further we proceed in the investigation of our Liturgy, the more we feel the difficulty of doing justice to it. Such is the spirit which it breathes throughout, that if only a small measure of its piety existed in all the different congregations in which it is used, we should be as holy and as happy a people, as ever the Jews were in the most
distinguished periods of their history. If this object has not been yet attained, it is not the fault of our Reformers: they have done all that men could do, to transmit to the latest posterity the blessings which they themselves had received: and there is not a member of our Church who has not reason to bless God every day of his life for their labours. But they knew that it would be to little purpose to provide suitable forms of prayer for every different occasion, if they did not also secure, as far as human wisdom could secure, a succession of men, who, actuated by the same ardent piety as themselves, should perform the different offices to the greatest advantage, and carry on by their personal ministrations the blessed work which they had begun. Here therefore they bestowed the utmost care; marking with precision what were the qualifications requisite for the ministerial office, and binding in the most solemn manner all who should be consecrated to it, to a diligent and faithful discharge of their respective duties.

When we first spake of the Liturgy, we proposed, after vindicating its use, and displaying its excellency, to direct your attention to one particular part, which on that account we should reserve for a distinct and fuller consideration. The part we had in view was, The Ordination Service. We are aware indeed that, in calling your attention so particularly to that, we stand on delicate ground: but being aware of it, we shall take the greater care that no one shall have reason to complain of want of delicacy. It is the candour that has invariably manifested itself in this congregation, that emboldens me to bring this subject before you. Any attempt to discuss the merits of the Liturgy would indeed be incomplete, if we omitted to notice that part, which so pre-eminently displays its highest excellencies, and is peculiarly appropriate to the audience which I have the honour to address. I trust therefore I shall not be thought assuming, as though I had any pretensions to exalt myself above the least and lowest of my brethren. I well know, that, if my own deficiencies were far less than they are, it would ill become me to take any other than the lowest place; and much more, when I am conscious that they are so great and manifold. For my own humiliation, no less than that of others, I enter on the task; and I pray God, that, whilst I am shewing what our Reformers inculcated as pertaining to the pastoral office, we may all apply the subject to ourselves, and intreat help from God, that, as "we have well said all that we have spoken, so there may be in us such an heart."

There are three things to be noticed in the Ordination Service, Our professions, our promises, and our prayers : after considering which, we shall endeavour to excite in all that desire, which God has so tenderly, and so affectionately, expressed in our behalf.

Let me begin then with calling your attention to the professions which we make, when first we become candidates for the ministerial office.

So sacred was the priesthood under the Law, that no man presumed to take it upon himself but he who was called to it by God as Aaron was. And though the priesthood of our blessed Lord was of a totally distinct kind from that which shadowed it forth “yet did he not glorify himself to be made an high priest," but was so constituted by his heavenly Father, who committed to him that office " after the order of Melchizedec." Some call therefore, as from God himself, is to be experienced by all who devote themselves to the service of the sanctuary. Of this our Reformers were convinced ; and hence they required the ordaining bishop to put to every candidate that should come before him this solemn interrogation ; " Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this office?" to which he answers, " I trust so."[1]

Now I am far from intimating that this call, which every candidate for Orders professes to have received, resembles that which was given to the Apostles: it is certainly not to be understood as though it were a voice or suggestion coming directly from the Holy Ghost: for though God may reveal his will in this manner, just as he did in the days of old, yet we have no reason to think that he does. The motion here spoken of is less perceptible: it does not carry its own evidence along with it; (as did that which in an instant prevailed on the Apostles to forsake their worldly business, and to follow Christ:) but it disposes the mind in a gradual and silent way to enter into the service of God; partly from a sense of obligation to him for his redeeming love, partly from a compassion for the ignorant and perishing multitudes around us, and partly from a desire to be an honoured instrument in the Redeemer's hands to establish and enlarge his kingdom in the world.

Less than this cannot reasonably be supposed to be comprehended in that question and the way to answer it with a good conscience is, to examine ourselves whether we have an eye to our own ease, honour, or preferment; or whether we have really a love to the souls of men, and a desire to promote the honour of our God? The question, in this view of it gives no scope for enthusiasm, nor does it leave any room for doubt upon the mind of him that is to answer it: every man may tell, whether he feels so deeply the value of his own soul, as to be anxious also for the souls of others; and whether, independent of worldly considerations, he has such love to the Lord Jesus Christ, as to desire above all things to advance his glory. These feelings are not liable to be mistaken, because they are always accompanied with corresponding actions, and always, productive of appropriate fruits.

Now in all eases where this profession has been made, it may be said, “They have well said all that they have spoke.”

For this profession is a public acknowledgment that such a call is necessary: and it serves as a barrier to exclude from the sacred office many, who would otherwise have undertaken it from worldly motives. And though it is true, that too many break through this barrier, yet it stands as a witness against them, and in very many instances an effectual witness; testifying to their consciences, that they have come to God with a lie in their right hand, and making them to tremble, lest they should be condemned at the tribunal of their God, for having, like Ananias and Sapphira, lied unto the Holy Ghost. Yes, very many, who have lightly uttered these words when they first entered into the ministry, have been led by them afterwards to examine their motives more attentively, and to humble themselves for the iniquity they have committed, and to surrender up themselves with redoubled energy to the service of their God. Though therefore we regret that any should make this profession on insufficient grounds, we rejoice that it is required of all: and we pray God, that all who have made it, may reconsider it with the attention it deserves; and that all who propose to make it, may pause, till they have maturely weighed the import of their assertion, and can call God himself to attest the truth of it.

Let us next turn our attention to the promises by which we bind ourselves on that occasion.

In the service for the Ordination of Priests, there is an exhortation from the bishop, which every minister would do well to read at least once every year. To give a just view of this part of our Liturgy, we must briefly open to you the contents of that exhortation; the different parts of which are afterwards brought before us in the shape of questions, to every one of which a distinct and solemn answer is demanded, as in the presence of the heart-searching God. The exhortation consists of two parts; in the first of which we are enjoined to consider the importance of that high office to which we are called; and in the second, we are urged to exert ourselves to the uttermost in the discharge of it.

In reference to the former of these it speaks thus: " Now we exhort you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you have in remembrance, into how high a dignity, and to how weighty an office and charge ye are called: that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord; to teach and to premonish [= forewarn], to feed and provide for the Lord's family; to seek for Christ's sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever."

Where in such few words can we find so striking a representation of the dignity of our office, as in this address? We are "Messengers" from the Most High God to instruct men in the knowledge of his will, and to communicate to them the glad tidings of salvation through the mediation of his Son: We are " Watchmen” to warn them of their danger, whilst they continue without an interest in Christ: And we are " Stewards," to superintend his household, and to deal out to every one of his servants from day to day whatsoever their respective necessities require. Now if we occupied such an office in the house of an earthly monarch only, our dignity were great; but to be thus engaged in the service of the King of kings, is an honour far greater than the temporal government of the whole universe. Should we not then bear in mind what an office is devolved upon us?

From speaking thus respecting the dignity of the ministry; it proceeds to speak of the importance of the trust committed to us: "Have always therefore printed in your remembrance how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. The congregation whom you must serve, is his spouse, and his body.” What a tender and affecting representation is here! The souls committed to our care are represented as "the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for which he shed his blood." What bounds would there be to our exertions, if we considered as we ought, that we are engaged in that very work, for which our Lord Jesus Christ came down from the bosom of his Father, and shed his blood upon the cross; and that to us he looks for, the completion of his efforts in the salvation of a ruined world? Further still, they are represented as "the spouse and body of Christ," whose welfare ought to be infinitely dearer to us than life itself. We know what concern men would feel, if the life of their own spouse, or of their own body, were in danger, though they could only hope to protract for a few years a frail and perishable existence: what then ought we not to feel for “the spouse and body of Christ” whose everlasting welfare is dependent on our exertions!

After thus impressing on our minds the importance of our office, the exhortation proceeds in the next place to urge us to a diligent performance of it. It reminds us, that we are answerable to God for every soul committed to our charge: that there must be no limit to our exertions, except what the capacity of our minds and the strength of our bodies have assigned. It calls upon us to use all the means in our power to qualify ourselves for the discharge of it, by withdrawing ourselves from worldly cares, worldly pleasures, worldly studies, worldly habits, and pursuits of every kind, in order to fix the whole bent of our minds on the study of the Holy Scriptures, and of those things which will assist us in the understanding of them. It directs us to be instant in prayer to God for the assistance of his Holy Spirit, by whose gracious influences alone we shall be enabled to fulfil our duties aright. And, finally, it enjoins us so to regulate our own lives, and so to govern our respective families, that we may be patterns to all around us; and that we may be able to address our congregations in the language of St. Paul, "Whatsoever ye have heard and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you." But it will be satisfactory to you to hear the very words of the exhortation itself: "If it shall happen the same church, or any member thereof, to take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and also the horrible punishment that will ensue. Wherefore consider with yourselves the end of your ministry towards the children of God, towards the spouse and body of Christ; and see that you never cease your labour, your care and diligence, until you have done all that lieth in you, according to your bounden duty; to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge unto that agreement in the faith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there be no place left among you, either for error in religion, or for viciousness of life."

"Forasmuch then as your office is both of so great excellency, and of so great difficulty, ye see with how great care and study ye ought to apply yourselves, as well that ye may shew yourselves dutiful and thankful unto that Lord who hath placed you in so high a dignity; as also to beware that neither you yourselves offend, nor be occasion that others offend. Howbeit ye cannot have a mind and will thereto of yourselves; for that will and ability is given of God alone: therefore ye ought, and have need to pray earnestly for his Holy Spirit. And seeing that you cannot by any other means compass the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvation of man, but with doctrine and exhortation taken out of the Holy Scriptures, and with a life agreeable to the same; consider how studious ye ought to be in reading and learning the Scriptures, and in framing the manners both of yourselves and of them that specially pertain unto you, according to the rule of the same scriptures: and for this self-same cause, how ye ought to forsake and set aside (as much as you may) all worldly cares and studies.”

Here let us pause a moment, to reflect, what stress our Reformers laid on the Holy Scriptures, as the only sure directory for our faith and practice, and the only certain rule of all our ministrations. They have clearly given it as their sentiment, that to study the word of God ourselves, and to open it to others, is the proper labour of a minister; a labour, that calls for all his time, and all his attention: and, by this zeal of theirs in behalf of the Inspired Volume, they were happily successful in bringing it into general use. But, if they could look down upon us at this time, and see what an unprecedented zeal has pervaded all ranks and orders of men amongst us, for the dissemination of that truth, which they at the expence of their own lives, transmitted to us; how would they rejoice and leap for joy! Yet, methinks, if they cast an eye upon this favoured spot, and saw that, whilst the Lord Jesus Christ is thus exalted in almost every other place, we are lukewarm in his cause; and whilst thousands all around us are emulating each other in exertions to extend his kingdom through the world, we, who are so liberal on other occasions, have not yet appeared in his favour; they would be ready to rebuke our tardiness, as David did the indifference of Judah, from whom he had reason to expect the most active support; " Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house, seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even to his house?" (2 Samuel 19:11) But I am persuaded, that there is nothing wanting but that a suitable proposal be made by some person of influence amongst us; and we shall soon approve ourselves worthy sons of those pious ancestors: I would hope there is not an individual amongst us, who would not gladly lend his aid, that " the word of the Lord may run and be glorified," not in this kingdom only, but, if possible, throughout all the earth.

But to return to the bishop's exhortation. "We have good hope that you have well weighed and pondered these things with yourselves long before this time; and that you have clearly determined, by God's grace, to give yourselves wholly to this office, whereunto it hath pleased God to call you; so that, as much as lieth in you, you will apply yourselves wholly to this one thing, and draw all your cares and studies this way; and that you will continually pray to God the Father, by the mediation of our only Saviour Jesus Christ, for the heavenly assistance of the Holy Ghost that by daily reading and weighing of the Scriptures, ye may wax riper and stronger in your ministry, and that ye may so endeavour yourselves from time to time to sanctify the lives of you and yours, and to fashion them after the rule and doctrine of Christ, that ye may be wholesome and godly example and patterns for the people to follow."

After this, the bishop calling upon the candidates in the name of God and of his church, to give a plain and solemn answer to the questions which he shall propose to them, puts the substance of the exhortation into several distinct questions; two of which only, for brevity sake, we will repeat: "Will you be diligent in prayers, and in reading of the Holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh?" To which we answer, "I will endeavour myself so to do, the Lord being my helper;" Then he asks again; "Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ?" To which we answer, "I will apply myself thereto, the Lord being my helper."

These are the promises which we make before God in the most solemn manner at the time of our Ordination. Now I would ask, Can any human being entertain a doubt, whether in making these promises, we have not "well said all that we have spoken?" Can any of us say, that too much has been required of us? Do we not see and feel, that, as the honour of the office is great, so is the difficulty of performing it aright, and the danger of performing it in a negligent and heartless manner? If a man undertake any office that requires indefatigable exertion, and that involves the temporal interests of men to a great extent, we expect of that man the utmost diligence and care. If then such be expected of the servants of men, where temporal interests only are affected, what must be expected of the servants of God, where the eternal interests of men, and the everlasting honour of God, are so deeply concerned? I say again, We cannot but approve the promises we have made; and methinks, God himself, when, he heard our vows, expressed his approbation of them, saying, "They have well said all that they have spoken."

We come, lastly, to mention our prayers, which were offered to God on that occasion. And here we have one of the most pious, and affecting institutions that ever was established upon earth. The bishop, who during the preceding exhortation and questions has been seated in his chair, now rises up, and in a standing posture makes his earnest supplication to God in behalf of all the candidates, in these words; " Almighty God, who hath given you this will to do all these things, grant also unto you strength and power to perform the same; that he may accomplish his work which he had begun in you, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." After this a request is made to the whole congregation then present, to offer up their prayers in secret to God, and to make their supplications to God for all these things. And, that they may have time to do so, it is appointed, that silence shall be kept for a space; the public services being for a while suspended, in order to give the congregation an opportunity of pouring out their souls before God in behalf of the persons who are to be ordained.

What an idea does this give us of the sanctity of our office, and of the need we have of Divine assistance for the performance of it! And how beautifully does it intimate to the people the interest they have in an efficient ministry! Surely, if they felt as they ought their need of spiritual instruction, they would never discontinue their prayers for those who are placed over them in the Lord, but would plead in their
behalf night and day.

After a sufficient time has been allowed for these private devotions, a hymn to the Holy Ghost is introduced; (the candidates all continuing in a kneeling posture;) a hymn, which in beauty of composition and spirituality of import cannot easily be surpassed. Time will not allow me to make any observations upon it; but it would be a great injustice to our Liturgy, if I should omit to recite it; and it will be a profitable employment, if, whilst we recite it, we all adopt it as expressing our own desires, and add our Amen to every petition contained in it.

" Come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire.
And lighten with celestial fire.
Thou the anointing Spirit art,
Who dost thy seven-fold gifts impart.
Thy blessed unction from above,
Is comfort, life, and fire of love.
Enable with perpetual light
The dulness of our blinded sight.
Anoint and cheer our soiled face
With the abundance of thy grace.
Keep far our foes; give peace at home;
Where thou art Guide, no ill can come.
Teach us to know the Father, Son,
And thee, of both, to be but one:
That through the ages all along,
This may be our endless song;
Praise to thy eternal merit,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

In this devout hymn the agency of the Holy Spirit, as the one source of light, and peace, and holiness, is fully acknowledged, and earnestly sought as the necessary means of forming pastors after God's heart; and it is well entitled to the encomium [= formal or high-flown praise] which has been already so often mentioned, "They have well said all that they have spoken."

Passing over the remaining prayers, we conclude this part of our subject with observing, that no sooner is the imposition of hands finished, and the commission given to the candidates to preach the gospel, than the newly ordained ministers consecrate themselves to God at his table; and seal, as it were, their vows, by partaking of the body and blood of Christ; into whose service they have been just admitted, and whom they have sworn to serve with their whole
hearts.

Thus far then "all is well said;" and if our hearts be in unison with our words, verily we shall have reason to bless God to all eternity. O that there were in us such an heart!"

Glad should I be, if your time would admit of it, to set forth at considerable length the benefits that would accrue from a conformity of heart in us to all that has been before stated: but the indulgence with which I have hitherto been favoured must not be abused. I shall therefore close the subject with only two reflections, illustrative of the wish contained in the text.

First, if such an heart were in us, how happy should we be in our own souls! Men may be so thoughtless, as to cast off all concern about futurity, and to say, "I Shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of my heart. " But, if once we begin to indulge any serious reflections, we cannot avoid thinking of our responsibility on account of the souls committed to our charge. Then, if we bring to mind that solemn declaration of God, that "the souls of our people shall be required at our hands," we must of necessity tremble for our state. The concerns of our own souls are of more weight than all other things in the world; and the thought of perishing under the weight of our own personal transgressions is inexpressibly awful: but the thought of perishing under the guilt of destroying hundreds and thousands of immortal souls, is so shocking, that it cannot be endured: if once admitted into the mind, it will fill us with consternation and terror; and the excuses which now appear so satisfactory to us, will vanish like smoke. We shall not then think it sufficient to have fulfilled our duties by proxy; since others can but perform their own duties; nor can any diligence of theirs ever justify our neglect: having sworn for ourselves, we must execute for ourselves; nor ever be satisfied with committing that trust to others, which at the bar of judgment we must give account of for ourselves. Nor shall we then think it sufficient to plead, that we have other engagements, which interfere with the discharge of our ministerial duties; unless we can be assured, that God will wave his claims upon us, and acknowledge the labours which we have undertaken for our own temporal advantage, more important than those, which respect his honour, and man's salvation. On the other hand, if we have the testimony of our own consciences, that we have endeavoured faithfully to perform our Ordination vows, and to execute, though with much imperfection, the work assigned us, we shall lift up our heads with joy. Matter for deep humiliation indeed even the most laborious ministers will find: but at the same time they will have an inward consciousness, that they have exerted themselves sincerely for God, though not so earnestly as they might: and, in the hope that the Saviour, whose love they have proclaimed to others, will have mercy upon them, they cast themselves on him for the acceptance of their services, and expect through him the salvation of their souls. Moreover, if we have been diligent in the discharge of our high office, we shall have a good hope that we have been instrumental to the salvation of others, whom we shall have as our joy and crown of rejoicing in the last day. With these prospects before us, we shall labour patiently, waiting, like the husbandman, for a distant harvest. Trials we shall have of many kinds; and many arising solely from our fidelity to God: but we shall bear up under them, going "through evil report and good report,” till we have fought our fight, and finished our course: and then at last we shall be welcomed as faithful servants into the joyous presence of our Lord. Who would not wish for such happiness as this? Only then let our hearts experience what our lips have uttered, and that happiness is ours: only let our professions be verified, our promises fulfilled, and our prayers realized, and all will be well: God will see in us the heart which he approves, and will honour us with testimonies of his approbation to all eternity.

My second observation is, If there were in us such an heart, What blessings would result to all around us! The careless minister may spend many years in a populous parish, and yet never see one sinner converted from the error of his ways, or turned onto God in newness of life. But the faithful servant of Jehovah will have some fruit of his ministry. God will answer to him that prayer at the close of the Ordination Service, "Grant that thy word spoken by their mouths, may have such success, that it may never be spoken in vain." God indeed does not make all equally useful; but he will leave none without witness, that the word which they preach is his Word, and that it is "the power of God unto the salvation of men." Behold, wherever such a minister is fixed, what a change takes place in reference to religion! The obstinately wicked, who either hear him with prejudice, or turn their backs on his ministry, may possible be only more hardened by the means he uses for their conversion: and circumstances may arise, where those who would once have plucked out their own eyes for him, may become for awhile his enemies; but still there are many that will arise and call him blessed: many will acknowledge him as their spiritual father; many will bless God for him, and shew in their respective circles the happy effects of his ministry. They will love his person; they will enjoy his preaching; they will tread in his steps; and they will shine as lights in a dark world. What then might not be hoped for, if all who have undertaken the sacred office of the ministry, fulfilled their engagements in the way we have before described? What if all prayed the prayers instead of reading them; and laboured out of the pulpit as well as in it; striving to bring all their people, "not only to the knowledge and love of Christ, but to such ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, as to leave no room among them either for error in religion, or for viciousness of life?" If there were such exertions made in every parish, we should hear no more complaints about the increase of Dissenters. The people's prejudices in general are in favour of the Establishment: and the more any persons have considered the excellence of the Liturgy, the more are they attached to the Established Church. Some indeed would entertain prejudices against it, even if all the twelve Apostles were members of it, and ministered in it; but, in general, it is a want of zeal in its ministers, and not any want of purity in its institutions, that gives such an advantage to Dissenters. Let me not be misunderstood, as though by these observations I meant to suggest any thing disrespectful of the Dissenters; (for I honour all that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, of whatever church they be; and I wish them from my heart every blessing that their souls can desire:) but, whilst I see such abundant means of edification in the Church of England, I cannot but regret, that any occasion should be given to men to seek for that in other places, which is so richly provided for them in their own church. Only let us be faithful to our engagements, and our churches will be crowded, our Sacraments thronged, our hearers edified: good institutions will be set on foot; liberality will be exercised, the poor
benefited, the ignorant enlightened, the distressed comforted; yea, and our "wilderness world will rejoice and blossom as that we might see this happy day; which, I would fondly hope, has begun to dawn! O that God would arise and "take to him his great power, and reign amongst us!" O that he might no longer have to express a wish," that there were in us such an heart;" but rather have to rejoice over us as possessed of such an heart; and that he would magnify himself in us as instruments of good to a ruined world! The Apostle to the Hebrews represents all the saints of former ages as witnesses of the conduct of those who were then alive; and he urges it as an argument with them to exert themselves to the uttermost: "Having then, says he, so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us." Thus let us consider the Reformers of our Church as now looking down upon us, and filled with anxiety for the success of their labours: let us hear them saying, " We did all that human foresight could do: We shewed to ministers what they ought to be: we bound them by the most solemn ties to walk in the steps of Christ and his Apostles: if any shall be lukewarm in their office, we shall have to appear in judgment against them, and shall be the means of aggravating their eternal condemnation." Let us, I say, consider them as spectators of our conduct; and endeavour to emulate their pious examples. Let us consider likewise, that the Liturgy itself will appear against us in judgment, if we labour not to the utmost of our power to fulfil the engagements which we have voluntarily entered into: Yea, God himself will say to us, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant." May God enable us all to lay these things to heart; that, whether we have already contracted, or are intending at a future period to contract, this fearful responsibility, we may duly consider what account we shall have to give of it in the day of judgment.

Endnotes:
[1] The church also insists on the necessity of a regular external call, or commission: For the bishop demands of the candidate, "Do you trust that you are truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to the canons of this church, to the ministry of the same." And the preface to the ordination offices declares, "No man shall he accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in this church, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined and admitted thereunto, according to form hereafter following, or hath had episcopal consecration or ordination." Am. Ed.

Editor’s Note: The original editor’s notes from the Eastburn, Kirk, and Company’s 1813 American edition of The Excellency of the Liturgy in Four Discourses have been reproduced with the sermon

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1061

[EV News] 9 Oct 2009--The Church of England website and various news agencies report today that the Revision Committee established by the General Synod to consider the draft legislation on enabling women to become bishops have decided to change its policy (decided by General Synod last year) to offer more protection to opponents.

The Committee have voted to amend the draft Measure to provide for certain functions to be vested in bishops by statute rather than by delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory code of practice for those unable on grounds of theological conviction to receive the episcopal and/or presbyteral ministry of women.

Nearly 300 people including more than 100 synod members wrote to the revision committee of the synod to argue that a code of practice to protect traditionalists was not enough. Instead many wanted legally constituted bishops to offer oversight instead of a code of practice.

Traditionalists welcomed the move. Paul Dawson of Reform said: “This looks like it could be what was needed to avert a split and preserve unity among people who differ on this issue. We will need to examine the detail, but we welcome this move and will work to secure widespread agreement.”

The Committee has further meetings planned between now and December and is aiming to complete its task by Christmas so that its report can be debated in full Synod in February and the draft legislation begin its Revision Stage in full Synod.

http://www.latimertrust.org/bf.htm

[The Latemer Trust] 9 Oct 2009--A Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration supplemented by The Way, the Truth and the Life – Theological Resources for a Global Anglican Future

How did the worldwide Anglican Communion come to the present situation, in which its conflict is a matter of continual public debate, and where it seems no peace-initiatives have been able to succeed? Out of concern for the very future of the Anglican Communion, over 1000 senior leaders from seventeen provinces in the Anglican Communion, representing 35 million church-going Anglicans, met for the Global Anglican Future Conference and Pilgrimage (GAFCON) in Jerusalem in June 2008. They met to seek counsel, to pray, and to return to their biblical and historical roots in the Holy Land, in a coalition of the willing. The GAFCON Statement, which contains the Jerusalem Declaration, is a prophetic response to the current situation of indiscipline. Being Faithful is an exposition of the Jerusalem Declaration, set alongside the theological resource papers drafted for the meeting in Jerusalem, which were previously published as The Way, the Truth and the Life.

Over against the culture of repudiation and innovation, public confession of the apostolic faith is necessary in order to shine the light in a dark place. To identify where orthodox Anglicans stand in response to these powerful cultural influences, it is necessary to confess that which we believe in relation to the current challenges. This is a time-honoured response of the Church to the challenges to its life. More importantly, it is an expression of, and a humble witness to, our orthodoxy and identity as Anglicans, living under the full and complete authority of the Bible. We are not attempting to fix Anglican identity but to reaffirm it, as being anchored in the apostolic faith, and as belonging to a Christian church which is centred on the gospel and bounded by Scripture.

http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=866

[Christian Legal Centre] 9 Oct 2009--A London Church was effectively ‘silenced’ by a Court after a decision by Magistrates to uphold a noise abatement notice, not to play excessive sound, after just one Muslim neighbour complained about noise levels of worship in a church which was next door to the house he purchased.

Singing songs of praise on a Sunday is normal Church activity. Using amplification is a normal part of Church life and it was argued at the Court hearing that the normal use of a Church building entails worship and cannot constitute noise nuisance.

Immanuel House of Worship Church has been meeting at 89 Vallentin Road in Walthamstow since it bought the premises in 2006. The Church was built in 1894 and was formerly used by the United Reformed Church, when the Church owned all the land on which the current properties are now built.

By Robin G. Jordan

In her article, “Episcopalians Deceived. 1928 vs 1979 - Deception revealed,” Roberta Bayer, the editor of Mandate magazine, commends to our attention a book review, “How Episcopalians Were Deceived,” written by Francis W. Read and originally published in July-August, 1981 edition of the New Oxford Review. In his review of Worship Leads the Way: a celebration of the life and work of Massey Hamilton Shepherd, Jr, a collection of essays published in honor of the late Massey Shepherd, Read alleges that in its adoption of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer the Episcopal Church was a victim of deception. He bases this accusation upon his interpretation of the late Urban T. Holmes’ contribution to the book. What caught my attention was the following claim in the review:

“In The Theology of Confirmation in Relation to Baptism (1946), Dix states and defends the classical Anglican understanding of Confirmation as set forth in the 1928 American Prayer Book.”

With this assertion Read, while he himself may have believed what he had written, is misleading Episcopalians (and other Anglicans.) Dix’s view of Confirmation was a cause of sharp division in the Church of England and its daughter churches. The doctrine of Confirmation of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, as articulated in its Offices of Instruction and Order for the Confirmation, represented a significant departure from that of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the first two American Prayer Books.

The late Peter Toon, like Read, championed Dix’s two-stage theory of Christian initiation and incorporated the 1928 Book of Common Prayer’s theology of Confirmation into An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), which he edited. In a series of articles originally published on Virtue Online in 2008 and now archived at http://exploringananglicanprayerbook.blogspot.com, I critiqued a number of services in that book, including the Catechism and Order for Confirmation. My critique of the Catechism and Order for Confirmation of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) includes a brief examination of the origin of Confirmation as a rite, its history, and its development in Anglicanism. It also takes a close look at how the extensive revision of the American Prayer Book adopted in 1928 changed the doctrine of Confirmation in that Prayer Book. The complete article is on the Internet at: http://exploringananglicanprayerbook.blogspot.com/2008/04/anglican-prayer-book-2008-catechism-and.html.

While the idea that the adoption of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer was the result of a conspiracy may appeal to conspiracy theorists, the reality is that one part of the Episcopal Church in the 1960s and 1970s wanted a new Prayer Book while another part of the Church was happy with the old Prayer Book. The part of the Church that desired the new Prayer Book triumphed. It is not surprising that the side that lost would attribute the victory of the winning side to trickery and deceit. The simple fact, however, is that the side that won had the strength of numbers. What won people over was not the new book’s theology but its contemporary language and greater variety. Only later—only after the liberals in the Episcopal Church started to use their interpretation of the new book to support their agenda of radical change—did people begin to pay attention to the doctrine of the new book and its possible implications.

One thing that has not received enough attention in this rehashing of past struggles over Prayer Book revision is the doctrinal changes that the 1928 Book of Common Prayer introduced into the American Prayer Book. It was not the “gentle revision” that the late Peter Toon made it out to be. In a number of ways the 1928 Prayer Book is a repudiation of the biblical and Reformation theology of the historic Anglican formularies—the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion of the 1571 and the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the Ordinal attached to it. Those who desire to see the restoration of confessional Anglicanism in North America can take an important step forward in that direction by making use of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer or a service book that actually translates the 1662 services into contemporary English and adapts them to the North American mission field.

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_116_3_Beckwith.pdf

[Church Society] 3 Oct 2009--Three years ago we were celebrating the 450th anniversary of the First Prayer Book of King Edward VI and of his Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer, which came into use on Whitsunday 1549; and this year, three years later, we are celebrating the 450th anniversary of their Second Prayer Book, which came into use on All Saintsʼ Day 1552. The 1549 Book was in many ways the greater change, for it was the first liturgy in the English language—in every respect an extraordinary achievement—but the 1552 Book was the climax of Cranmerʼs work, for it brought to clear and mature expression the biblical theology which in the 1549 Book was often only implicit. The 1552 Act of Uniformity which introduced the Second Prayer Book expresses Cranmerʼs intentions in the book: it commends the previous book as ʻa very godly order...agreeable to the word of God and the primitive Churchʼ, but says that it has now been ʻexplained and made fully perfectʼ, ʻas well for the more plain and manifest explanation...as for the more perfectionʼ.

The remarkable speed of events during Edwardʼs short reign of little more than six years might seem to show indecent haste, were it not for the remarkable sluggishness of progress during the long reign of his father Henry VIII, when, because of the hesitations of the king, little more than preparations for reform were possible. These preparations included the very important steps of introducing the Great Bible of Tyndale and Coverdale into every parish church,and making the Church of England independent of the authority of Rome; but reformed services and homilies could only be privately prepared, not publicly introduced, with the single exception of Cranmerʼs English Litany of 1544, the first edition of the one now in the Prayer Book.

Edward VI has often been described as a sickly youth and a puppet in the hands of others. He was certainly young, coming to the throne at the age of nine and dying at the age of fifteen, and his health was not robust, butrecent study, summed up in Diarmaid MacCullochʼs book Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation,1 has shown that he was far from being a mere spectator of events. Precociously well informed,and with clear convictions, he showed all the vigorous despotism of a Tudor monarch in driving forward the changes which Cranmer was planning, and which Somerset and Northumberland, the successive Lord Protectors,supported. Indeed, the King and Northumberland might have gone further,without Cranmerʼs restraining hand; but the 1552 Prayer Book is his work, not theirs; it shows the same liturgical mastery as that of 1549, and is in the same succession, completing the reforms that 1549 began. The theory of C.W. Dugmore that Cranmer was not responsible for the 1552 Book—an extremist opposed to him was—and the older theory that he was responsible for it, but only under heavy pressure from continental Reformers with whom he did not really sympathise,2 are contrary to the evidence, and are now generally abandoned.

As we shall see, it is not the case that Cranmer intended to reform the liturgy at a single stroke, and that 1549 represents his true mind and his final goal. On the contrary, being a peaceable man, with a concern for those who found change difficult, he planned his reform by stages, and 1552 represents the final stage.

Editor’s Note: The following sermon is the third in a series of four sermons on the excellency of the Church of England’s liturgy that Charles Simeon preached before Cambridge University in 1811. In celebration of the life and ministry of this great evangelical leader I am publishing all four sermons on Anglicans Ablaze. Simeon was truly a Christian ablaze with zeal for the gospel.

Sermon III: The spirituality and purity, fulness and suitableness, and moderation and candour of the Liturgy

They have well said all that they have spoken: O that there were such an heart in them! Deuteronomy 5: 28,29

IN our preceding discourses on this text, we first entered distinctly and fully into its true import, and then applied it, in an accommodated sense, to the Liturgy of our Established Church. The utility of a Liturgy being doubted by many, we endeavoured to vindicate the use of it, as lawful in itself, expedient for us, and acceptable to God. But it is not a mere vindication only which such a composition merits at our hands: the labour bestowed upon it has been exceeding great: Our first reformers omitted nothing that could conduce to the improvement of it: they consulted the most pious and learned of foreign Divines, and submitted it to them for their correction : and, since their time, there have been frequent revisions of it, in order that every expression which could be made a subject of cavil [= exception taken, esp. frivolous objection], might be amended: by which means it has been brought to such a state of perfection, as no human composition of equal size and variety can pretend to.

To display its excellence is the task, which agreeably to the plan before proposed, is now assigned us; and we enter upon it with pleasure ; in the hope, that those who have never yet studied the Liturgy, will learn to appreciate its value, and that all of us may be led to a more thankful and profitable use of it in future.

To judge of the Liturgy aright, we should contemplate Its spirituality and purity—Its fulness and suitableness—Its moderation and candour.

1st. Its spirituality and purity.

It is well known that the services of the Church of Rome, from whose communion we separated, were full of superstition and error: they taught the people to rest in carnal ordinances, without either stimulating them to real piety, or establishing them on the foundation which God has laid. They contained, it is true, much that was good: but they were at the same time so filled with ceremonies of man's invention, and with doctrines repugnant to the Gospel, that they tended only to deceive and ruin all who adhered to them. In direct opposition to those services we affirm, that the whole scope and tendency of our Liturgy is to raise our minds to a holy and heavenly state, and to build us up upon the Lord Jesus Christ as the only foundation of a sinner's hope.

Let us look at the stated services of our church; let us call to mind all that we have heard or uttered, from the introductory sentences which were to prepare our minds, to the Dismission [= dismissal] Prayer which closes the whole; there is nothing for shew, but all for edification and spiritual improvement.

Is humility the foundation of true piety? What deep humiliation is expressed in the General Confession, and throughout the Litany, as also in supplicating forgiveness after every one of the Commandments, for our innumerable violations of them all! Is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ the way appointed for our reconciliation with God? We ask for every blessing solely in his name and for his sake; and with the holy vehemence of importunity, we urge with him the consideration of all that he has done and suffered for us, as our plea for mercy: and, at the Lord's Supper, we mark so fully our affiance [= faith, trust (in)] in his atoning blood, that it is impossible for anyone to use those prayers aright, without seeing and feeling that " there is no other name under heaven but his, whereby we can be saved."

The same we may observe respecting the occasional services of our Church. From our very birth even to the grave, our Church omits nothing that can tend to the edification of its members. At our first introduction into the Church, with what solemnity are we dedicated to God in our Baptismal Service! What pledges does our Church require of our Sponsors that we shall be brought up in the true faith and fear of God ; and how earnestly does she lead us to pray for a progressive, total, and permanent renovation of our souls? No sooner are we capable of receiving instruction, than she provides for us, and expressly requires that we be well instructed in, a Catechism, so short that it burthens [= burdens] the memory of none, and so comprehensive that it contains all that is necessary for our information at that early period of our life. When once we are taught by that to know the nature and extent of our baptismal vows, the Church calls upon us to renew in our own person the vows that were formerly made for us in our name; and, in a service specially prepared for that purpose, leads us to consecrate ourselves to God; thus endeavouring to confirm us in our holy resolutions, and to establish us in the faith of Christ. Not content with having thus initiated, instructed, and confirmed her members in the religion of Christ, the Church embraces every occasion of instilling into our minds the knowledge and love of his ways. If we change our condition in life, we are required to come to the altar of our God, and there devote ourselves afresh to him, and implore his blessing, from which alone all true happiness proceeds. Are mercies and deliverances vouchsafed to any, especially that great mercy of preservation from the pangs and perils of child birth? The Church appoints a public acknowledgment to be made to Almighty God in the presence of the whole congregation, and provides a suitable service for that end. In like manner, for every public mercy, or in time of any public calamity, particular prayers and thanksgivings are provided for our use. In a time of sickness there is also very particular provision made for our instruction and consolation : and even after death, when she can no more benefit the deceased, the Church labours to promote the benefit of her surviving members, by a service the most solemn and impressive that ever was formed. Thus attentive is she to supply in everything, as far as human endeavours can avail, our spiritual wants; being decent in her forms, but not superstitious ; and strong in her expressions, but not erroneous. In short, it is not possible to read the Liturgy with candour, and not to see that the welfare of our souls is the one Object of the whole ; and that the compilers of it had nothing in view, but that in all our works, begun, continued, and ended in God, we should glorify his holy Name.

The excellencies of our Liturgy will yet further appear while we notice, next, Its fulness and suitableness.

Astonishing is the wisdom with which the Liturgy is adapted to the edification of every member of the Church. There is no case that is overlooked, no sin that is not deplored, no want that is not specified, no blessing that is not asked: yet, whilst every particular is entered into so far that every individual person may find his own ease adverted (= refer in speech or writing (to circumstances & c.)] to, and his own wishes expressed, the whole is so carefully worded, that no person is led to express more than he ought to feel, or to deliver sentiments, in which he may not join with his whole heart. Indeed there is a minuteness in the petitions that is rarely found even in men's private devotions; and those very particularities are founded in the deepest knowledge of the human heart, and the completest view of men's spiritual necessities; for instance, we pray to God to deliver us, not only in all time of our tribulation, but in all time of our wealth also ("In all time of our prosperity…" in the American Liturgy. Am. Ed.); because we are quite as much in danger of being drawn from God by prosperity, as by adversity; and need his aid as much in the one as in the other.

In the intercessory part of our devotions also, our sympathy is called forth in behalf of all orders and degrees of men, under every name, and every character that can be conceived. We pray to him to strengthen such as do stand, to comfort and help the weak hearted, and to raise up them that fall, and finally, to beat down Satan under our feet. We intreat him also to succour, help, and comfort all that are in danger, necessity, and tribulation. We further supplicate him in behalf of all that travel whether by land or water, all women labouring of child ("All women in the perils of child-birth…" in the American Liturgy. Am. Ed.), all sick persons, and young children, and particularly intreat him to have pity upon all prisoners and captives. Still further, we plead with him to defend and provide for the fatherless children, and widows, and all that are desolate and oppressed: and, lest any should have been omitted, we beg him "to have mercy uponall men," generally, and more particularly "to forgive our enemies, persecutors, and slanderers, and to turn their hearts." In what other prayers, whether extemporaneous or written, shall we ever find such diffusive benevolence as this?

In a word, there is no possible situation in which we can be placed, but the prayers are precisely suited to us; nor can we be in any frame of mind wherein they will not express our feelings as strongly and forceably, as any person could express them even in his secret chamber. Take a broken-hearted penitent; where can he ever find words, wherein to supplicate the mercy of his God, more congenial with his feelings than in the Litany, where he renews his application to each person of the Sacred Trinity for mercy, under the character of a miserable sinner? Hear him when kneeling before the altar of his God: "Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men, we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness which we from time to time most grievously have committed, by thought, word, and deed, against thy Divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings: the remembrance of them is grievous unto us: the burthen [= burden] of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us; have mercy upon us, most merciful Father: for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life, to the honour and glory of thy name, through Jesus Christ our Lord." I may venture to say that no finite wisdom could suggest words more suited to the feelings or necessities of a penitent, than these.

Take, next, a person full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and if he were the devoutest of all the human race, he could never find words wherein to give scope to all the exercises of his mind more suitable than in the Te Deum: "We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord. All the earth doth worship thee, the Father everlasting. To thee all angels cry aloud, the heavens, and all the powers therein: To thee Cherubin and Seraphin continually do cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth : Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty of thy glory." Hear him also at the table of the Lord: "It is very meet, right; and our bounden duty, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto thee, Lord, holy Father, almighty, everlasting God : Therefore with angels, and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious name, evermore praising thee, and saying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts, heaven and earth are full of thy glory; glory be to thee, O Lord most high."

Even where there are no particular exercises of the mind, the Liturgy is calculated to produce the greatest possible good: for the gravity and sobriety of the whole service are fitted to impress the most careless sinner; whilst the various portions of Scripture that are read out of the Old and New Testament, not only for the Lessons of the day, but from the Psalms also, and from the Epistles and Gospels, are well adapted to arrest the attention of the thoughtless, and to convey instruction to the most ignorant. Indeed I consider it as one of the highest excellencies of our Liturgy, that it is calculated to make us wise, intelligent, and sober Christians: it marks a golden mean ; it affects and inspires a meek, humble, modest, sober piety, equally remote from the coldness of a formalist, the self-importance of a systematic dogmatist, and the unhallowed fervour of a wild enthusiast. A tender seriousness, a meek devotion and a humble joy are the qualities which it was intended, and is calculated, to produce in all her members.

It remains that we yet further trace the excellence of our Liturgy in its Moderation and Candour.

The whole Christian world has from time to time been agitated with controversies of different kinds; and human passions have grievously debased the characters and actions even of good men in every age. But it should seem that the compilers of our Liturgy were inspired with a wisdom and moderation peculiar to themselves. They kept back no truth whatever through fear of giving offence ; yet were careful so to state every truth, as to leave those inexcusable who should recede from the Church on account of any sentiments which she maintained. In this they imitated the inspired penmen; who do not dwell on doctrines after the manner of human systems, but introduce them incidentally, as it were, as occasion suggests, and bring them forward always in connexion with practical duties. The various perfections of God are all stated in different parts; but all in such a way as, without affording any occasion for dispute, tends effectually to encourage us in our addresses to him. The Godhead of Christ is constantly asserted, and different prayers are expressly addressed to him; but nothing is said in a way of contentious disputation. The influences of the Holy Spirit, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed, are stated ; and "the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is sought, in order that we may perfectly love God, and worthily magnify his holy Name:" but all is conveyed in a way of humble devotion, without reflections upon others, or even a word that can lead the thoughts to controversy of any kind. Even the deepest doctrines of our holy religion are occasionally brought forth in a practical view, (in which view alone they ought to be regarded;) that, whilst we contemplate them as truths, we may experience their sanctifying efficacy on our hearts. The truth, the whole truth, is brought forward, without fear; but it is brought forward also without offence: all is temperate; all is candid; all is practical; all is peaceful; and every word is spoken in love. This is an excellency that deserves particular notice, because it is so contrary to what is found in the worship of those, whose addresses to the Most High God depend on the immediate views and feelings of an individual person, which may be, and not unfrequently are, tinctured in a lamentable degree by party-views, and unhallowed passions. And we shall do well to bear in mind this excellency, in order that we may imitate it ; and that we may shew to all, that the moderation which so eminently characterizes the Offices of our Church, is no less visible in all her members.

Sorry should I be when speaking on this amiable virtue, to transgress it even in the smallest degree: but I appeal to all who hear me, whether there be not a want of this virtue in the temper of the present times; and whether, if our Reformers themselves were to rise again and live amongst us, their pious sentiments and holy lives would not be with many an occasion of offence? I need not repeat the terms which are used to stigmatize those who labour to walk in their paths; nor will I speak of the jealousies which are entertained against those, who live only to inculcate what our Reformers taught. You need not be told that even the moderate sentiments of our Reformers are at this day condemned by many as dangerous errors; and the very exertions, whereby alone the knowledge of them can be communicated unto men, are imputed to vanity and loaded with blame. But, though I thus speak, I must acknowledge to the glory of God, that in no place have moderation and candour shone more conspicuous, than in this distinguished seat of literature and science: and I pray God, that the exercise of these virtues may be richly recompensed from the Lord into every bosom, and be followed with all the other graces that accompany salvation.

From this view of our subject it will be naturally asked, Do I then consider the Liturgy as altogether perfect? I answer, No: It is a human composition; and there is nothing human that can claim so high a title as that of absolute perfection. There are certainly some few expressions which might be altered for the better, and which in all probability would have been altered at the Conference which was appointed for the last revision of it, if the unreasonable scrupulosity of some, and the unbending pertinacity of others, had not defeated the object of that assembly. I have before mentioned two, which, though capable of being vindicated, might admit of some improvement. And, as I have been speaking strongly of the moderation and candour of the Liturgy, I will here bring forward the only exception to it that I am aware of; and that is found in the Athanasian Creed (The Athanasian Creed is omitted in the American Liturgy. Am. Ed.). The damnatory clauses contained in that Creed, do certainly breathe a very different spirit from that which pervades every other part of our Liturgy. As to the doctrine of the Creed, it is perfectly sound, and such as ought to be universally received. But it is matter of regret that any should be led to pronounce a sentence of damnation against their fellow-creatures, in any case where God himself has not clearly and certainly pronounced it. Yet whilst I say this, permit me to add, that I think this Creed does not express, nor ever was intended to express, so much as is generally supposed. The part principally objected to, is, that whole statement, which is contained between the first assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the other articles of our faith: and the objection is, that the damnatory clauses which would be justifiable, if confined to the general assertion respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, become unjustifiable, when extended to the whole of that which is annexed to it. But, if we suppose that this intermediate part was intended as an explanation of the doctrine in question, we still, I think, ought not to be understood as affirming respecting that explanation all that we affirm respecting the doctrine itself.

If anyone will read the Athanasian Creed with attention, he will find three damnatory clauses; one at the beginning, which is confined to the general doctrine of the Trinity; another at the close of what, for argument sake, we call the explanation of that doctrine ; and another at the end, relating to the other articles of the Creed, such as the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, and his coming at the last day to judge the world. Now whoever will compare the three clauses, will find a marked difference between them; those which relate to the general doctrine of the Trinity, and to the other articles of the Creed, are strong; asserting positively that the points must be believed, and that too on pain of everlasting damnation: but that which is annexed to the explanation of the doctrine, asserts only, that a man who is in earnest about his salvation ought to think thus of the Trinity. The words in the original are, Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat: and this shews in what sense we are to understand the more ambiguous language of our translation: " He therefore that will be saved, (i. e. is willing or desirous to be saved,) mustthus think (let him thus think) of the Trinity.” Thus it appears that the things contained in the beginning and end of the Creed are spoken of as matters of faith; but this which is inserted in the midst, as a matter of opinion only; in reference to the first and last parts, the certainty of damnation is asserted; but in reference to the intermediate part, nothing is asserted, except that such are the views which we ought to entertain of the point in question. Now I would ask, was this difference the effect of chance? Or rather, was it not actually intended, in order to guard against the very objection that is here adduced [= cite as proof or instance]?

This then is the answer which we give on the supposition that the part which appears so objectionable, is to be considered as an explanation of the doctrine in question. But what if it was never intended as an explanation? What if it contains only a proof of that doctrine, and an appeal to our reason that that doctrine is true? Yet, if we examine the Creed, we shall find this to be the real fact. Let us in few words point out the steps of the argument.

The Creed says, "The Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance;" and then it proceeds, "For there is one person of the Father,” and so on; and then, after proving the distinct personality of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and their unity in the Godhead, it adds, "So THAT in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. HE THEREFORE that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity." Here are all the distinct parts of an argument. The position affirmed—the proofs adduced [= cite as proof or instance]—the deduction made—and the conclusion drawn in reference to the importance of receiving and acknowledging that doctrine.

From hence then I infer, that the damnatory clauses should be understood only in reference to the doctrine affirmed, and not be extended to the parts which are adduced [= cite as proof or instance] only in confirmation of it: and, if we believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental article of the Christian faith, we may without any breach of charity apply to that doctrine what our Lord spake of the Gospel at large, " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned."

Thus, in either view, the use of the Creed may be vindicated: for, if we consider the obnoxious part as an explanation, the terms requiring it to be received, are intentionally softened ; and if we consider it as a proof, it is to the doctrine proved, and not to the proof annexed, that the damnatory clauses are fairly applicable.

Still, after all, I confess, that if the same candour and moderation that are observable in all other parts of the Liturgy, had been preserved here, it would have been better. For though I do verily believe, that those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, are in a fatal error, and will find themselves so at the day of judgment, I would rather deplore the curse that awaits them, than denounce it ; and rather weep over them in my secret chamber, than utter anathemas against them in the house of God.

I hope I have now met the question of our Liturgy fairly. I have not confined myself to general assertions, but have set forth the difficulties which are supposed to exist against it, and have given such a solution of them, as I think is sufficient to satisfy any conscientious mind; though it is still matter of regret that any laboured explanation of them should be necessary.

Now then, acknowledging that our Liturgy is not absolutely perfect, and that those who most admire it would be glad if these few blemishes were removed; have we not still abundant reason to be thankful for it? Let its excellencies be fairly weighed; and its blemishes will sink into nothing: let its excellencies be duly appreciated, and every person in the kingdom will acknowledge himself deeply indebted to those, who with so much care and piety compiled it.

But these blemishes alone are seen by multitudes; and its excellencies are altogether forgotten: yea, moreover, frequent occasion is taken from these blemishes to persuade men to renounce their communion with the Established Church, in the hopes offending a purer worship elsewhere. With what justice such arguments are urged, will best appear by a comparison between the prayers that are offered elsewhere, and those that are offered in the Established Church. There are about 11,000 places of worship in the Established Church, and about as many out of it. Now take the prayers that are offered on any sabbath in all places out of the Establishment; have them all written down, and every expression sifted and scrutinized as our Liturgy has been: then compare them with the prayers that have been offered in all the Churches of the kingdom; and see what comparison the extemporaneous effusions will bear with our pre-composed forms. Having done this for one sabbath, proceed to do it for a year; and then, after a similar examination, compare them again: were this done, (and done it ought to be in order to form a correct judgment on the case,) methinks there is scarcely a man in the kingdom that would not fall down on his knees and bless God for the Liturgy of the Established Church.

All that is wanting is, an heart suited to the Liturgy, and cast as it were into that mould. It may with truth be said of us, "They have well said all that they have spoken: O that there were in them such an heart!" Let us only suppose that on any particular occasion there were in all of us such a state of mind as the Liturgy is suited to express; what glorious worship would ours be! And how certainly would God delight to hear and bless us! We will not say that he would come down and fill the house with his visible glory, as he did in the days of Moses and of Solomon; but we will say, that he would come down and fill our souls with such a sense of his presence and love, as would transform us into his blessed image, and constitute a very heaven upon earth. Let each of us then adopt the wish in our text, and say, "O that there may be in me such an heart!" Let us cultivate the moderation and candour which are there exhibited; divesting ourselves of all prejudice against religion, and receiving with impartial readiness the whole counsel we come up to the house of God, let us seek those very dispositions in the use of the Liturgy, which our reformers exercised in the framing of it. Let us bring with us into the presence of our God that spirituality of mind that shall fit us for communion with him, and that purity of heart which is the commencement of the Divine image on the soul. Let us study whenever we join in the different parts of this Liturgy, to get our hearts suitably impressed with the work in which we are engage; that our confessions may be humble, our petitions fervent, our thanksgivings devout, and our whole souls obedient to the word we hear. In a word, let us not be satisfied with any attainments, but labour to be holy as God himself is holy, and perfect even as our Father which is in heaven is perfect. If now a doubt remain on the mind of any individual respecting the transcendent excellence of the Liturgy, let him only take the Litany, and go through every petition of it attentively, and at the close of every petition ask himself, What sort of a person should I be, if this petition were so answered to me, that I lived henceforth according to it? And what kind of a world would this be, if all the people that were in it experienced the same answer, and walked according to the same model? If, for instance, we were all from this hour delivered "from all blindness of heart, from pride, vain-glory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness; if we were delivered also " from all other deadly sin, and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil; what happiness should we not possess? How happy would the church be, if it should "please God to illuminate all bishops, priests, and deacons with true knowledge and understanding of his word, so that both by their preaching and living, they did set it forth and shew it accordingly!" How blessed also would the whole nation be, if it pleased God to "endue the Lords of the Council, and all the nobility, with grace, wisdom, and understanding ; and to bless and keep the magistrates, giving them grace to execute justice and to maintain truth ; and further to bless all his people throughout the land !" (The prayers for civil rulers are adapted in the American Book of Common Prayer, to the government of the United States. Am. Ed.) Yea, what a world would this be, if from this moment God should "give to all nations unity, peace, and concord!" Were these prayers once answered, we should hear no more complaints of our Liturgy, nor ever wish for anything in public, better than, that which is provided for us. May God hasten forward that happy day, when all the assemblies of his people throughout the land shall enter fully into the spirit of these prayers, and be answered in the desire of their hearts; receiving from him an "increase of grace, to hear meekly his word, to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit!" And to us in particular may he give, even to every individual amongst us, "true repentance; and forgive all our sins, negligences, and ignorances; and endue us with the grace of his Holy Spirit, that we may amend our lives according to his holy word." Amen and Amen.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/preachingworship/worship/letthelittlechildrencome.html

[Christianity Today] 1 Oct 2009--In the early 1950s, American social institutions were inundated with the children from the baby boom. Seeing the unique needs of this new generation, schools, governments, and churches responded with ever more age-specific education. The result was the now familiar separation of children, youth, and adult ministries in most churches.

This type of ministry structure was revolutionary at the time, but now many churches are promoting a counter-revolution: a shift from stratified, age-segregated ministry to intentional integration of children in the overall life of the congregation.

These ministries are radical not in their unusual methods or dramatic implementation, but in the foundational ways they are challenging the status quo regarding the purpose, philosophy, and programming of children's ministry. And in the process, they are transforming their worship communities.

http://robgagnon.net/homosexELCAonWhatToDo.htm

[Robert Gagnon] 1 Oct 2009--With a process that gives new meaning to the expression “stacked deck,” the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August 2009 voted to allow for the blessing of homosexual unions and the rostering of pastors in homosexual relationships. I salute the efforts of the renewal group Lutheran CORE, which courageously fought against the homosexualist agenda at the assembly (I had the great privilege of addressing them). Just this past weekend they had a meeting attended by 1200 persons that began the process of defining a new vision and structure for those who recognize the ELCA’s hard-left departure from normative Christian faith and practice.

How should faithful Lutherans—that is, Lutherans who affirm the male-female requirement for sexual unions so important to Jesus and the scriptural witness to him—deal with these new heretical and immoral actions? In particular, do the recent actions of the Churchwide Assembly justify beginning a trajectory that will lead eventually to disaffiliation with the denominational structure known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America? Let me suggest a syllogism that goes something like this....

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/9/30/archbishop-covenant-adoption-for-provinces-only

[The Living Church] 1 Oct 2009--The Archbishop of Canterbury has welcomed an endorsement of the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant by the Diocese of Central Florida’s board and standing committee, but said only provinces can officially adopt the covenant.

On Sept. 17, the diocesan board and standing committee adopted a resolution stating that they “affirm sections one, two and three of the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Anglican Covenant, as we await the final draft of section four.”

Central Florida also asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to “outline and implement a process by which individual dioceses, and even parishes, could become members of the Anglican Covenant, even in cases where their provincial or diocesan authorities decline to do so.”

In a Sept. 28 letter to the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, Archbishop Williams called the diocesan bodies' endorsement a step in the right direction. However, he stated, “as a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces).”

The archbishop added that “I see no objection to a diocese resolving less formally on an ‘endorsement’ of the covenant.” Such an action would not have an “institutional effect” but “would be a clear declaration of intent to live within the agreed terms of the Communion’s life and so would undoubtedly positively affect a diocese’s pastoral and sacramental relations” with the wider communion, he said.

By Robin G. Jordan

In his article “The Genealogy of the American Book of Common Prayer,” published in the September/October 2009 issue of Mandate, the Rev. Charles Flinn sketches a rather broad outline of the genealogy of the American Prayer Book. Unfortunately this outline omits a number of important details related to the genesis of the American Prayer Book.

The first Prayer Book, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, was a transitional Prayer Book and was, after three years, replaced by a Reformed liturgy, the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. This liturgy represented Archbishop Cranmer’s mature thinking.

The 1552 Book of Common Prayer was short-lived due to the untimely death of the young king Edward VI. Edward’s older sister Mary, the daughter of Henry VIII’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon and a devote Roman Catholic, ascended to the English throne. Mary abolished the Book of Common Prayer and restored the Latin Mass. Mary took other steps to stamp out Protestantism and to reestablish Roman Catholicism and papal authority in her kingdom. Her persecution of English Protestants earned for her the epithet of “bloody.” Mary burned as heretics women and children as well as leading figures of the Edwardian Reformation such as Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, and Hugh Latimer.

The 1552 Book of Common Prayer, however, did not perish with Thomas Cranmer in the flames at Oxford. The 1552 Prayer Book was resurrected in the form of the 1559 Prayer Book, which was the 1552 Book with a minimum of changes. The 1552 Prayer Book in its 1559 form would be “the” Prayer Book of the Church of England for almost 100 years.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer far from represented a defeat for the High Churchmen. The Restoration bishops who compiled the book were High Churchmen. They included John Wren who had helped to compile the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book. They had available to them John Cosin’s The Durham Book containing a number of Laudian proposals for the revision of the Prayer Book at the restoration of the Stuarts to the English throne after the Interregnum. They had the full backing of the new monarch, Charles II.

In his case study of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer Brian Douglas makes the following observations:

"The fact that the 1662 revisers choose to follow the more Reformed model of 1552, 1559 and 1604 in the main, and not to return to the more Catholic model of 1549, may indicate both a satisfaction with the Reformed model and desire for conciliation between the various parties. The proposals of the Laudians, as expressed in The Durham Book, were not, in the main, adopted. The proposals of the Presbyterians in The Exceptions and The Reformation of the Liturgy, were also, in the main, not adopted. The previous prayer book model was substantially maintained with only slight, although important changes to the Eucharist. The changes were suggestive of moderate realism and these have been discussed above."

He goes on to write:

"The eucharistic theology of the 1662 BCP is indicated as much as, if not more than, by what it does not include, as what it does. For example, the omission of sacrificial language at the Offertory, with a specific ‘offering up of the elements’ such as is found in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637 or in The Durham Book, and the failure to include an epiclesis in the Prayer of Consecration, suggest that the revisers, despite the small number of significant changes, were keen to maintain the previous model. The failure of the revisers to include any of the more radical Puritan suggestions (e.g. those found in Baxter’s Savoy Liturgy) also suggests that they were satisfied with the prayer book at it existed."

He further writes:

"If Maltby is correct, then this may help to explain why the bishops were happy to maintain the prayer book in much the same form as it previously existed and why they generally rejected the proposals for change from both the Laudian and Presbyterian parties. In so doing the theology of the eucharist, principally moderate realism, was also maintained, although this was in a milder form than it otherwise may have been. It has been this milder form of moderate realism that has persisted in Anglicanism so strongly (e.g. The Church of England and The Anglican Church of Australia)." [1]

In 1689 Archbishop Sancroft, eight bishops, and 400 priests were ejected from their livings after they refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new king, the Protestant Prince William of Orange. Parliament had invited William to assume the English throne after the deposed Roman Catholic King James II had fled the country. The bishops and clergy in question believed that they were still bound by their oath to James II. For their refusal to swear allegiance to William they were known as the “Non-Jurors.” After Sancroft’s death the Non-Jurors perpetuated their schism by the ordination of new bishops and clergy. The schism would last more than a century.

The Non-Jurors were divided into two groups - the "Usagers," a tiny minority of the Non-Jurors who argued for the addition of an epiclesis and an oblation of the bread and wine in the Prayer of Consecration and the "Non-Usagers," the majority of the Non-Jurors who did not. The first group maintained that without an epiclesis and an oblation of the bread and the wine in the Prayer of Consecration, the eucharist was not a means of grace; the second group, while viewing an epiclesis and an oblation of the bread and the wine in the Prayer of Consecration as desirable, did not considered these liturgical practices necessary or practical. The dispute over these usages became so heated that a majority of the Non-Juror College of Bishops issued a remonstrance against the Usagers for disturbing the peace of the Church.

The Usagers initially used the 1549 Book of Common Prayer instead of the 1662 Prayer Book. They published their own Communion Office in 1718. In addition to incorporating an epiclesis and oblation of the bread and wine in the Prayer of Consecration, they reintroduced the mixed chalice and prayers for the dead in the Communion. They issued a complete Prayer Book in 1734. Other distinctive practices of the Usagers were triple immersion at Baptism, the use of chrism at Confirmation, and the Unction of the Sick.

Two Usager bishops outlived their opponents and produced the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office. It eventually became the Communion Office of the Scottish Episcopal Church. For an explanation of the eucharistic doctrine of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office, see the accompanying article, “What’s Wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?”

Scotland is an early example of a country where two Prayer Book traditions existed side by side. English Evangelicals in Scotland refused to use the Prayer Book of the Scottish Episcopal Church or submit to the oversight of the Scottish bishops. Their rejection of the Scottish Prayer Book was doctrinal; their rejection of the Scottish bishops was both theological and political. Instead they established what became known as the “English Episcopal Chapels,” licensed chapels in which the 1662 Book of Common Prayer was used.

At the urging of Bishop Seabury the 1789 General Convention of the fledgling Protestant Episcopal Church adopted the 1764 Scottish Communion Office with some important changes. The changes that the 1789 General Convention made to the 1764 Scottish Communion Office included the omission of the offering up of the bread and wine at the offertory and the versicle and response, “The Lord be with you” “And also with thy spirit” from the Sursum Corda. Both of these liturgical elements were associated with the doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice and Transubstantiation. The General Convention restored the word "there" in the Scottish Prayer of Consecration to "who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world, and did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to continue a perpetuall memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, untill his coming again." The General Convention omitted the decidedly realist language of the epiclesis with its petition that the bread and the wine might "become" the Body and the Blood of Christ. The Prayer for the Church Militant was restored to the 1552 position between the offertory and invitation to confession; the Lord’s Prayer to the 1552 position after the distribution of the communion; the invitation to confession, the general confession, the absolution, and the comfortable words to the 1552 position immediately before the Sursum Corda; and the Prayer of Humble Access to the 1552 position immediately after the Sanctus. The ending of the Scottish Prayer for the Church Militant was replaced with that of the 1662 Prayer for the Church Militant. The rubric “And when he receiveth himself, or delivereth the sacrament of the body of Christ to others, he shall say…” was changed to “And when he delivereth the Bread he shall say….” The Words of Administration were replaced with those from the 1559 Prayer Book. All these changes were adopted to bring the Communion Office closer to the 1662 Communion Service, as well as to eliminate any further liturgical elements associated with the doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice and Transubstantiation.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer was the first major revision of the American Prayer Book. It predecessor, the 1892 Prayer Book, differed little in substance from the 1789 Prayer Book. The changes in the 1928 revision of the American Prayer Book, however, were far-reaching and even radical. These changes are detailed in the accompanying article, “What’s Wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?”

The 1920s marked a watershed in Prayer Book revision. While the new Prayer Books—the 1926 Irish Prayer Book, the 1928 American Prayer Book, the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book, the 1929 South African Prayer Book—may have resembled each other superficially, incorporating and adapting forms and rites from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, as well as retaining the use of Tudor English and the second person familiar, their theology differed significantly from that of the 1662 Prayer Book, The exception is the 1926 Irish Prayer Book, which is the closest doctrinally to the 1662.

The addition of material from the Anglican Missal and other manuals to the services of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer alters the theology of the 1928 Prayer Book, moving it even further away from the doctrine of the classical Anglican Prayer Book.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer goes well beyond being an edition or local adaptation of the 1662 Prayer Book. The 1928 Prayer Book played a major part in the Prayer Book revision of the 1960s and 1970s. It broke new ground, opening the way for more extensive revision of the American Prayer Book. It wetted appetites for further change. The result was the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

Endnotes:
[1] Brian Douglas, “The1662 Book of Common Prayer,” Anglican Eucharistic Theology, electronic article on the Internet at: http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Blog/Entries/2006/4/22_The_1662_Book_of_Common_Prayer.html

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on The Heritage Anglican Newtwork blog on December 18, 2008.

By Robin G. Jordan

Introduction:
In this article I seek to answer from a Reformed perspective the question, "What's wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?". Classical Anglican Evangelicalism had disappeared from the Protestant Episcopal Church by 1900. The 1928 Prayer Book was adopted at the time the Anglo-Catholic and Broad Church movements were the dominant schools of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church and the book reflects their doctrinal emphases. At the 1925 General Convention Anglo-Catholics and Broad Churchmen united to remove the Thirty-Nine Articles from the American Prayer Book. They adopted a resolution dropping the Articles from the Prayer Book. However, they were thwarted by the denomination’s Constitution that required an amendment of the Constitution to abolish the Articles. The resolution, which required the ratification of a successive General Convention, was quietly dropped at the 1928 General Convention.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer was the first major revision of the American Prayer Book. It goes far toward undoing the work that was accomplished for the Anglican Church at the Reformation. Many things rejected by the sixteenth century Reformers because of their inconsistency with biblical and Reformation doctrine, are introduced into the American Prayer Book.

Morning and Evening Prayer:
The 1928 Book of Common Prayer dilutes the American Prayer Book’s doctrine of sin. The ten penitential sentences that had survived the 1892 revision of the American Prayer Book are reduced to three each in Morning and Evening Prayer and placed under the season of Lent. This eliminates an important evangelistic element from Morning and Evening Prayer. Samuel Luenberger draws to our attention:

“The text of our sentences are so compiled that they let one discern for himself the way to overcome sin through repentance. The following texts from the twelve quotations occupy a particularly important position: Ezekiel 18:27; Psalm 51:3.9, and 17; Joe; 2:13, etc.

“The very first quotation from Ezekiel 18 shows the way to prevail over sin:

“When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” [1]

In its use of Sentences for the Seasons the 1928 Book of Common Prayer imitates the 1928 English Revised Book of Common Prayer and the 1929 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, both which are much more Catholic in tone than 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

The Evangelicals in the Church of England and the British Parliament rejected the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book because it modified the doctrine of the Church of England, and replaced the biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with unreformed Catholic doctrine. The upper house of Convocation would defy Parliament and authorized its use in Dioceses where the Ordinary consented to its use. The Scottish Episcopal Church has historically been more High Church and Catholic than the Church of England, preserving such customs as the wearing of eucharistic vestments during the Communion Service and the elevation of the consecrated host during the Prayer of Consecration. The 1929 Scottish Prayer of Consecration included an Epiclesis invoking the Holy Spirit upon the bread and the wine so that the eucharistic elements should “become” the Body and Blood of Christ. Like the 1928 Prayer of Consecration, the 1929 Scottish Prayer of Consecration is derived from the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration.

The 1928 Prayer Book permits the substitution of a short Invitation for the Exhortation in Morning and Evening Prayer with its view of man “in a strictly evangelical-Reformation way as one who wishes to disguise his sinfulness and lives with a propensity for avoiding God.” [2]

A short Absolution taken from the medieval Sarum breviary may be used in lieu of Cranmer’s fuller Absolution. This short Absolution, as well as a simplified Confession, is offered as an alternative at both Morning and Evening Prayer in the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book. As we shall see, the short Absolution is one of number of features that the 1928 Prayer Book shares with these books.

The 1928 Prayer Book permits the omission of the first Lord’s Prayer or the second Lord’s Prayer at Morning Prayer. In the 1552 Prayer Book the first Lord’s Prayer forms a part of a sequence that begins with the penitential sentences. Cranmer’s Absolution does not make sense if the first Lord’s Prayer is omitted. The 1928 Prayer Book permits the omission of the Exhortation, the Confession, the Absolution, and the first Lord’s Prayer at Evening Prayer. This represents a significant departure from the Reformed form of Evening Prayer of the 1552 Prayer Book and a return to the unreformed Catholic form of the medieval Sarum breviary and the 1549 Prayer Book.

Invitatories for optional use in the form of medieval Antiphons are prefixed to the Venite. Cranmer had omitted Invitatories from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer because they were interpolated between the successive verses of the Venite and other passages of Scripture and broke the continual course of the reading of the Scripture. (See The Preface in the 1552 Prayer Book). With the Sentences for the Seasons that replace the penitential sentences, they give further emphasis to the Seasons. In the 1928 Prayer Book observance of the Church Year overshadows repentance at Morning and Evening Prayer. This is just one of a number of ways that the 1928 Prayer Book minimizes the gravity of sin.

The Holy Communion
The revised Order for the Holy Communion includes elements that quite definitely bring it into line with the medieval Roman Mass. Among the changes that 1928 Prayer Book introduced are the following:

1. The opening rubrics of the 1928 Order for Holy Communion direct the priest to stand before the Holy Table, his back turned to the congregation. This is how the priest stood at the medieval Roman Mass. This position, commonly referred to as the “eastward position,” is associated with the unreformed Catholic and Roman doctrinal views that presbyters are a sacrificing priesthood and the Mass is a sacrifice.

2. The rubrics direct the priest to offer the bread and wine and then place them upon the Holy Table at the Offertory. An offering of the bread and wine during the Prayer of Consecration had already been incorporated into the American Prayer Book with the adoption of the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration in 1789. The two offerings of the bread and wine, one at the Offertory and the other during the Canon or Prayer of Consecration are taken from the medieval Roman Mass and are associated with the doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

3. The Prayer for the State of Christ’s Church contains a petition for the departed. This is also a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.

4. After the Sursum Corda the rubrics direct the priest to “turn to the Holy Table” with his back turned to the congregation—the eastward position associated with the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

5. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration closely follows the pattern of the medieval Roman Canon, except the latter has no Epiclesis.

6. The theology of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration represents a modification of the theology of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration. 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office was the work of two elderly Scottish Non-Juror bishops. They were the last of the surviving Usagers, a Scottish Non-Juror church party that taught that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. They believed that Christ had not offered himself as an atoning sacrifice for our redemption on the cross but at the Last Supper. He had only been slain on the cross.

“The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. Our Lord instituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist when He began to offer Himself for the sins of all men, i.e. immediately after eating His Last Passover. He did not offer the Sacrifice upon the Cross; it was slain there but was offered at the Institution of the Eucharist.” [3]

Bishop Thomas Deacon in his Comprehensive View describes a proper celebration of the Eucharist from this standpoint. The priest, he writes

“does as Christ did...he next repeats our Saviour’s powerful words “This is my Body,” “This is my Blood” over the Bread and Cup. The effect of the words is that the Bread and Cup are made authoritative Representations or symbols of Christ’s crucified Body and of His Blood shed; and in consequence they are in a capacity of being offered to God as the great Christian Sacrifice....God accepts the Sacrifice and returns it to us again to feast upon, in order that we may be thereby partakers of all the benefits of our Saviour’s Death and Passion. The Bread and Cup become capable of conferring these benefits on the priest praying to God the Father to send the Holy’ Spirit upon them. The Bread and Cup are thereby made the Spiritual, Life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, in Power and Virtue.” [4]

The theology of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration is far removed from the Reformed theology of the 1552 and 1662 Prayers of Consecration or even the theology of the 1549 Canon. In the latter prayer the Epiclesis precedes the Words of Institution and there is no Oblation, or offering of the bread and wine.

6. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration contains an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine that, as both Martin Bucer and Stephen Gardiner drew to Cranmer’s attention, suggest that the bread and wine undergo some kind of change other than a change in use. For this reason and the following reason the invocation of the Holy Spirit was dropped by Cranmer from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. An invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine is a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.

7. Bucer also objected to the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects. There was no warrant for the practice in the Bible. It also represented a departure from Biblical practice. In the Bible the Holy Spirit is invoked only upon people. The Holy Spirit also descends only upon people. Now where do we find in Scripture the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects.

The blessing of Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and 1 Corinthians 10:16 refers to the Jewish practice of blessing God over a cup of wine as a form of thanksgiving and not to the blessing of the wine itself. This is clear from Luke 22:17-20:

“And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.”

And 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”

It is not an example of Jesus pronouncing God’s blessing upon an inanimate object—a cup of wine.

In the 1552 Communion Service in the prayer, “Almighty God oure heavenly father, whiche of thy tender mecye…,” the priest humbly asks God that those receiving the bread and wine may be partakers of Christ’s Body and Blood. In the 1552 Baptismal Office in the prayer, “Almightie euerliving God, whose most dearely beloued sonne Jesus Christ…,” the priest humbly asks God that all his servants who are to be baptized in the water, may receive the fullness of his grace and ever remain in the number of his faithful and elect children. There is no invocation of the Holy Spirit or God’s blessing upon the bread and wine or the water in the font.

8. Nowhere in Scripture do we read that Jesus commanded the disciples to celebrate and make a memorial before God with the bread and wine or to offer them to God. Jesus instructed the disciples to eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of him. He said nothing about celebrating and making a memorial before God as if God needed to be reminded of what he had done. Paul speaks of proclaiming Christ’s death with the bread and the cup until he comes again. But he is not speaking of proclaiming to God but to our fellow men.

9. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration contains the words: “…with these thy gifts, which we now offer unto thee….” It also contains the words: “And though we be unworthy to offer unto Thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech Thee to accept this our bounden duty and service.” The Reformers rejected the doctrine that the priest offers a sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. Cranmer therefore removed from the 1552 Prayer Book all expressions that taught a presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, and all expressions that implied the offering of them as a sacrifice. For this reason Cranmer removed the word “Altar,” and all words in the Prayer of Consecration relating to any offering of a sacrifice by the priest. The Reformers also discarded eucharistic vestments such as the chasuble.

10. The rubrical permission to sing a hymn immediately before the distribution of the Communion permits the singing of the Agnes Dei. Coming where it does, it suggests a presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine as a result of the words of Consecration, and for this reason it was removed by Cranmer from the 1552 Prayer Book. This suggestion is further strengthened by the placement of the Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access immediately before the distribution of the Communion. For the same reason they were moved by Cranmer to different positions in the 1552 Prayer Book, the Lord’s Prayer to a position immediately after the distribution of the Communion and the Prayer of Humble Access to a position immediately after the Sanctus.

Baptism
The 1928 Book of Common Prayer also changes the baptismal theology of the American Prayer Book.

1. The opening sentence of the Exhortation of the Baptismal Office “forasmuch as all men are born and conceived in sin” has been omitted.

2. The 1928 Prayer Book drops the Flood Prayer that had been in the Book of Common Prayer since the 1549 Prayer Book and in the American Prayer Book since 1789. The Flood Prayer teaches that God has “sanctified the element of water to the mystical washing away of sin” through Our Lord’s baptism in the River Jordan. For this reason the form for the private baptism of infants in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books does not contain a blessing of the water used in baptism.

One cannot make even the slightest alteration in a text without affecting the doctrine of the text. Dropping the Flood Prayer that stresses God’s sanctification of the element of water for the purpose of baptism is as serious an alteration of doctrine in the 1928 Prayer Book as the addition of prayers for the departed.

3. The biblical language of the Prayer for the Baptismal Candidate has been watered down.

4. The 1928 Prayer Book recasts the prayer “Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son, etc…” along the lines of the Prayer of Consecration in the service of Holy Communion. This recasting emphasizes the priestly blessing of the water in the font. This is also a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.

The rubrics of 1928 Prayer Book do permit private baptism even by a baptized layperson in cases of dire emergency without a blessing of the water since its omission would have gone against Catholic tradition but its inclusion does not counterbalance the recasting of “Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son, etc…”.

5. The signing of the newly baptized with the cross upon the forehead, a practice that Evangelicals view as without warrant in the Bible, to which they have long objected, and which was optional in the 1892 Office of Baptism, is made mandatory.

6. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer gives liturgical expression to the unreformed Catholic doctrine that a bishop in a line of succession going back to the apostles, through the imposition of hands, has the power to confer upon an ordinand in turn the power to convert the substance of the eucharistic elements into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ (Transubstantiation) and to impart to the element of water the power to regenerate the human soul (Baptismal Regeneration).

The Thirty-Nine Articles rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are sharply divided over the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. The Privy Council, the highest judicial authority for the Church of England at the time, ruled against Bishop Henry Philpotts and the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in the Gorham decision in 1850. The Privy Council ruled that Baptismal Regeneration was not a doctrine of the Church of England and Bishop Philpotts should not have denied a living to George Gorham in the Diocese of Exeter because Gorham did not believe that the grace of regeneration invariably accompanied the act of baptism.

Baptismal Regeneration was one of the latent Catholic doctrines in the 1789 Book of Common Prayer that, with the growth and increased influence of Tractarianism in the then Protestant Episcopal Church, prompted Bishop George David Cummins and conservative Evangelical clergy and laypersons to leave the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873 and to form the Reformed Episcopal Church.

The Catechism
The 1928 Book of Common Prayer replaces the Prayer Book Catechism with two Offices of Instruction. The Second Office articulates a view of Confirmation, which has no real basis in the Bible and is not found in the Reformed Prayer Book of 1552, the classical Anglican Prayer Book of 1662, or the first two American Prayer Books of 1789 and 1892. It is a sacramental view of Confirmation that differs from the catechetical view of Confirmation that was held by the English Reformers and is given liturgical expression in these four Prayer Books. It is also a view of Confirmation over which Anglicans are sharply divided.

Confirmation
The 1928 Prayer Book omits the preface to the Office of Confirmation that was a feature of the 1662, 1789, and 1892 Offices of Confirmation and which emphasizes the catechetical nature of Confirmation. The presentation of the candidates for Confirmation to the bishop is modeled upon that of the presentation of candidates for ordination. The 1928 Prayer Book includes Acts 8 as an optional reading. This particular reading and what it means is the subject of much heated debate.

Burial of the Dead
The biblical language of the Burial Office has been diluted. The Burial Office includes a number of prayers for the departed.

Ordination
In the Ordinal there is a significant change in the form of the question put to the deacon concerning the Bible. Instead of being asked, “Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments?” the candidate is asked “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contains all Doctrine required as necessary for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?” The candidate is no longer required to affirm a blanket belief in the teachings of the Bible.

Consecration of a Church or Chapel
In the Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel any reference to God’s anger or wrath has been expunged

Conclusion
From a Reformed perspective the 1928 Book of Common Prayer suffers from a number of serious theological defects. This rules out the use of the 1928 Prayer Book in public worship in an Anglican church that is Reformed in its doctrine. If prayers and liturgical material is used from the 1928 Prayer Book, great care should be taken to see that their doctrine conforms with the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal.

Anglicans have long recognized how we pray reflects and shapes what we believe. What good does it do to preach one thing when the liturgy that we are using and the worship practices that we have adopted teach another? Both our preaching and our liturgy and worship practices need to convey the same message.

Endnotes:
[1] Samuel Leuenberger, Archbishop Cranmer’s Immortal Bequest The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England: An Evangelistic Liturgy, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) 152.
[2] Leuenberger, 153.
[3]Henry Broxap, The Late Non-Jurors, “Appendix II Non Juror Doctrine and Ceremonies” (Cambridge 1928), 1, appendix on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/nonjurors/broxapapp2.pdf
[4] Broxap, 1-2.

By David Philips

By God's grace the accession of Edward VI in 1547 permitted the acceleration of the reformation of the Church of England. Some changes were made almost immediately but it was not until March 1548 that the first new services were issued in the form of an English supplement to the latin mass. Ten months later in January 1549 the First Prayer Book of Edward VI was introduced accompanied by an Act of Uniformity. This book took a momentous step away from the errors of the medieval liturgies and did away with most of the unscriptural practices. However, it left several corners unswept and, more importantly, whilst representing a purge of the past it was not a liturgy that had been shaped by reformed principles.

There followed three significant steps leading up to a truly reformed liturgy. First, the order was made to destroy stone altars and replace them with wooden tables. Secondly, Cranmer issued his Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament in which he set out his understanding of the nature of the sacrament and refuted the errors that had grown up contrary to scripture. Thirdly, work progressed on the new Articles of Religion which were finally published in 1553.

So it was that the Second Prayer Book was published and authorised for use from All Saints Day 1552. It was not well received by many and with the death of Edward the following year and the accession of Mary the book itself was in use for only a very short time. With three specific alterations, reportedly at the request of Queen Elizabeth herself, the book was re-instated and authorised for use from May 8 1559. Over the next century the book underwent a number of changes, mostly in the rubrics, and was banned for a while during the commonwealth. Finally the texts of 1552 formed the substance of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Undoubtedly there were many who had a hand in the production of the 1552 book but the lions share of the credit has always gone to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. He sought to build his liturgy on sound scriptural principles whilst borrowing from what was good in tradition and contemporary practice.

Good liturgy requires both sound doctrine and the eloquent use of language. More recent attempts at liturgy have failed to combine these too successfully. Whilst some modern liturgy does make effective use of language and some of the texts produced in recent decades have proved memorable, often they have been defective in doctrine. In contrast many evangelical attempts at liturgy, whilst admirable in doctrinal content often seem flat and unmemorable as a piece of liturgy. In the goodness of God the two elements were combined in Cranmer's liturgy. It is intriguing that there are many today who love the language of the Book of Common Prayer whilst rejecting its primary doctrinal foundations, whilst others rejoice in its doctrine but would prefer something less archaic in word and phrase. Cranmer's liturgy has been remarkable in the way that it has shaped the doctrine of the Church of England whilst also influencing the English language.

The original article was published in Cross+Way Autumn Edition 2002 No.86 and is reproduced with the permission of the Church Society.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26132339-2703,00.html

[The Australian] 29 Sep 2009--The snaking line of more than 1000 people queuing to enter the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery in northern England on Friday illustrated the surge of interest sparked by the announcement - just a day before - of the largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon treasure ever discovered.

Among those queuing to see the artefacts was Allison Buckley, 47, from Stafford. "It's almost as exciting as queuing to see the treasures of Tutankhamun," she said, recalling the rush to see the Egyptian boy king's death mask in London in 1972. "What makes this so exciting is it's just been unearthed. There's still soil on the pieces, and you can imagine it in the ground."

The treasures were chanced on in a Staffordshire field by Terry Herbert, a 55-year-old unemployed metal-detection enthusiast. The find - almost 1500 gold and silver items thought to date from the 7th or 8th century - has staggered archeologists.

Experts say it will reshape our understanding of the Dark Ages. So little is known of the period that the artefacts have already led historians to question some of their fundamental beliefs - such as whether Christianity was embraced by the pagan Saxons earlier than previously thought.

But why are historians so animated over the Staffordshire Hoard, as it is being called, and what are the secrets it promises to unlock about Britain's most obscure historical period?