Wednesday, November 12, 2008

The Use of Incense in Anglican Worship: Another View

By Robin G. Jordan

This article was prompted by an article, "In Defense of Incense," written by Matt Kennedy and posted on the Stand Firm web site and the largely favorable comments posted in response to the article. Very few of the posters recognized the weaknesses in Kennedy’s case for the use of incense in Anglican worship.

In his article Kennedy briefly explains why he had written an apology, or defense of the use of incense—a number of evangelical students who attend his church had been shocked by the use of incense in the liturgy on All Saints’ Sunday—and how he, an erstwhile Calvinist, had begun to use incense in the liturgy—the church that he is serving has a High Church worship tradition and he was continuing an already established practice. He goes on to explain that Anglicans, while they "embrace the essential biblical truths recovered during the Reformation," retain the worship practices of "the ancient Church" that "can be traced back to the very first centuries" of the Church and that "do not contradict the Biblical witness".

Kennedy argues that since God created beauty, the Church glorifies God in its use of what God has created in its worship of God—"to reflect God's created beauty back to him." He claims that a number of the elements that his church uses in its worship go as far back as to the Tabernacle that God commanded the people of Israel to construct for his worship. He argues on the basis of God’s specific instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle that God loves beauty and that "if God created beauty and is glorified by the use of the beauty he created--and since there is nothing in scripture to oppose it," the church has more or less carte blanche to use whatever is beautiful in the worship of God.

This is gross oversimplification of God’s attitude toward our use of the beauty that he has created. It suggests that if something is beautiful, that it is pleasing to God. It is an attempt to rationalize practices that do not have God’s sanction or which, while they are not prohibited by God in the Bible are not helpful or edifying. The Old Testament contains a number of examples of things that God has created and which are beautiful but which are also displeasing to God. One example is Lucifer whom God created and who was beautiful but who rebelled against God and whom God cast out of heaven. Kennedy also fails to distinguish between the beauty God has created—seen in nature—and the beauty that man creates. They are not the same. We may chisel a graven image from a beautiful piece of marble—what God created—and this image may by our aesthetic standards be beautiful, but if we fall down before this image and worship it, God is displeased. Whether the image is made from something that God created and which is beautiful and the image is itself beautiful does not make the image pleasing to God. It is an idol and worshiping idols is displeasing to God. The truth is that everything that is beautiful is not pleasing to God and what we use in worship is not pleasing to God simply because it is beautiful—to us!

Kennedy then directs his readers’ attention to a link where they may find a number of references to the use of incense in the Bible. He suggests that a perusal of these references will show that incense is "a neutral element." He notes:

"When used to worship God, in keeping with his instructions to Moses, it is good and pleasing to the Lord. But it can, like anything else, be turned to idolatry."

From here on we must give more attention to what Kennedy does not say rather than what he says. While he briefly mentions God’s instructions to Moses concerning the use of incense, he does not discuss those instructions in his article or what happened to the Israelites who disobeyed those instructions. Kennedy also suggests that those instructions are applicable to us in the twenty-first century as they were at the time they were given to Moses. This is far from the truth. In the instructions that God gave to Moses the offering of incense was restricted to the Aaronic priesthood, which God had instituted. A thurifer swinging a censer of burning incense in a procession in Anglican church, a deacon using the incense to cense the Book of Gospels, or a priest using it to cense the Lord’s Table, the bread and the wine, and the congregation is not a member of the Aaronic priesthood--except if he is a convert to Christianity from Judaism and his family is one of the "cohan" families that can trace their ancestry back to one of the families of the priests of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Aaronic priesthood is hereditary. God’s instructions to Moses contain nothing on the subject of swinging an incense pot in processions or censing books, communion tables, bread and wine, or people. The swinging of a censer of burning incense in a procession can be traced to the ancient Roman custom of accompanying with the burning of incense processions honoring civil magistrates, victorious generals, and the emperor. It served as an honorific, a way of showing honor or respect to the individual concerned.

In his article Kennedy cites Malachi 1:11 as a reference to the use of incense in the Bible: "For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts." Kennedy, however, does not mention the context of this verse. Nor does mention how some Christian traditions have misinterpreted this passage and used it to justify doctrines and practices that are not consistent with the Bible. Malachi 1:11 comes near the tail end of a passage –Malachi 1:6-14—in which God, speaking through the prophet Malachi, condemns the priests of Israel for offering polluted food—blind, lame, blemished, and sick animals--upon the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem and polluting the Lord’s Table. Malachi not only condemns the priests for corrupting worship but also for misleading the people.

The day in which God’s name will be great among the nations and in everyplace incense and a pure offering will be offered to God’s name is not in the present day but in the distant future. Malachi 1:11 points to the conversion of the nations, a time that has not yet come. See Zephaniah 3:9-10:

" ‘For at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call upon the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord. From beyond the rivers of Cush my worshipers, the daughter of my dispersed ones, shall bring my offering.

Malachi 1:11 also points to the time after the "great and awesome day of the Lord" (Joel 2:31), the Day of Judgment, in which the true worshippers will be spared (Malachi 3:13-4:13). We are not living in that time.

Malachi 1:11 does not provide a scriptural warrant for the use of incense in our day. Indeed its use might be regarded as an affront to the Lord since those churches that are offering incense in their worship are presumptuously doing so before the time God has appointed.

"The pure offering" referred to in Malachi 1:11 a number of church traditions (e.g., Anglo-Catholic, Roman Catholic) have interpreted as a reference to the priest’s re-offering Christ in the Eucharist. In these traditions the altar is censed with incense at the offertory. So are the gifts. The gifts may be brought in a formal procession led by a thurifer swinging a smoking censer. Incense may also be offered at other junctures in the Eucharist.

"The pure offering" in Malachi 1:11, however, does not refer to any re-offering of Christ in the Eucharist—" hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, etc" of the Latin Mass. It refers to the unblemished offering of Leviticus 22:20: "You shall not offer anything that has a blemish, for it will not be acceptable for you." See also Deuteronomy 15:21.

The English Reformers rejected the interpretation of "the pure offering" of Malachi 1:11 as the priestly re-offering of Christ in the Eucharist, which lies at the heart of both the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. With the notion of the priestly re-offering of Christ in the Eucharist, they also rejected all the practices that were associated with this idea. This included reference to the Lord’s Table as an altar, eucharistic vestments such as the chasuble and the stole, the eastward position--the standing of the priest in front of the Table with the his back to the congregation, his holding up or elevating of the consecrated bread over his head, and the use of incense.

While incense itself may be adophora, how it is used is not an indifferent matter. An Old Testament passage that supports this conclusion is Ezekiel 8:7-13. In this passage the elders of Israel are using incense to break the Fourth Commandment, worshiping idols, as well as the likenesses of "creeping things and loathsome beasts" engraved on the walls of secret rooms:

"And he brought me to the entrance of the court, and when I looked, behold, there was a hole in the wall. Then he said to me, ‘Son of man, dig in the wall.’ So I dug in the wall, and behold, there was an entrance. And he said to me, ‘Go in, and see the vile abominations that they are committing here. So I went in and saw. And there, engraved on the wall all around, was every form of creeping things and loathsome beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel. And before them stood seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, with Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan standing among them. Each had his censer in his hand, and the smoke of the cloud of incense went up. Then he said to me, ‘Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the dark, each in his room of pictures? For they say, "The LORD does not see us, the LORD has forsaken the land." He said also to me, ‘You will see still greater abominations that they commit.’"

Those who interpret Malachi 1:11 as a warrant for the use of incense are taking a descriptive passage from the Bible and arguing that since the Bible describes a practice, we may adopt it. This approach to interpreting Scripture, however, is flawed. Aubrey Mulphur has identified six reasons why it is flawed in the interpretation of the New Testament.

1. The fact that the New Testament describes a church practice doesn’t make it mandatory.
2. Mandatory practices are prescribed or commanded in the Bible.
3. Descriptive passages relate the practices of one church but not necessarily all churches.
4. There must be evidence in a descriptive passage that the author was establishing a precedent.
5. Church practices recorded in descriptive portions may only illustrate or support principles clearly taught in other passages.
6. When what is mentioned in a descriptive portion isn’t directly related to an author’s intent, it’s incidental rather than normative. [1]

This approach is also flawed in the interpretation of the Old Testament for the same reasons.

Malachi is describing a practice that will become more widespread at some future time but which in his day was confined to the Temple in Jerusalem. Malachi 1:11 contains no commands or imperatives or the kinds of verbs that mark a prescriptive passage. Nor does contain anything that suggests that it is a permissive passage. It simply that states that one day from the beginning of each day to its end God’s name will be great among the nations and in every place incense and "a pure offering" will be offered to God’s name. Malachi looked forward to that day. It did not come in his lifetime. More than two and a half millennia later it still has not come. There is nothing in the passage that suggests that Malachi intended that his words should be regarded as precedent for the use of incense outside the Temple worship in the seventeenth century, the nineteenth century, or the twenty-first century.

The use of incense entered Christian worship not from the worship of the Temple in Jerusalem and Judaism but from the pagan civic and religious practices of the ancient Mediterranean world. The non-Jewish Christians who first adopted the practice justified it from a number of Old Testament references to the use of incense in the worship of God. They did not believe that they were bound by the Old Testament prohibition against the promiscuous offering of incense to God. They interpreted Malachi 1:11 as precedent for their use of incense even though the conditions of Malachi’s prophesy have not been met. They also justified it on the basis of two references to incense in the New Testament. I will take a look at these references later in the article and address whether they provide a sufficient warrant for the use of incense in Anglican and Episcopal churches in North America in the twenty-first century.

The use of incense has a checkered history in Anglican worship. The English Reformers rejected the practice. Incense was not used during the reign of Edward VI or the reign of Elizabeth I, except perhaps in the Queen’s chapel. Elizabeth’s Reformed and reform-minded bishops were not happy with her continued use of a silver crucifix and eucharistic vestments in the royal chapel. During her reign the interiors of English churches were whitewashed. Rood screens were torn down and removed. Images were also removed. Stone altars were replaced with "honest boards," on trestles or "frames," legs, placed lengthwise in the body of the church or at the steps of the chancel. The royal coat of arms, the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and other passages of Scripture painted on boards were the most common "ornaments." Some priests wore a surplice; others, ordinary street clothes. A few in cathedrals and college chapels wore a cope. Some congregations knelt to receive communion; others stood. A few sat around the Lord’s Table. Elizabeth’s bishops sought to impose uniformity of doctrine and practice but were not always successful. For eight years Elizabeth resisted giving her royal assent to a bill demanding clerical subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563. It is doubtful that the Recusants used incense at their secret masses as the authorities would have smelled the incense and discovered their meeting places.

In the sixteenth century Anglican poet-priest George Herbert makes passing reference to incense in The Country Parson: In preparation for the great festivals of the church year such as Christmas and Easter, Herbert writes, the parish priest has responsibility for making certain that fresh straw or rushes are put down on the nave floor of the parish church, the interior of the church is decorated with greenery appropriate to the season—holy, ivy, evergreens, and rosemary at Christmas—and fumigated with incense:

"THe Countrey Parson hath a speciall care of his Church, that all things there be decent, and befitting his Name by which it is called. Therefore first he takes order, that all things be in good repair; as walls plaistered, windows glazed, floore paved, seats whole, firm, and uniform, especially that the Pulpit, and Desk, and Communion Table, and Font be as they ought, for those great duties that are performed in them. Secondly, that the Church be swept, and kept cleane without dust, or Cobwebs, and at great festivalls strawed, and stuck with boughs, and perfumed with incense. Thirdly, That there be fit, and proper texts of Scripture every where painted, and that all the painting be grave, and reverend, not with light colours, or foolish anticks. Fourthly, That all the books appointed by Authority be there, and those not torne, or fouled, but whole and clean, and well bound; and that there be a fitting, and sightly Communion Cloth of fine linnen, with an handsome, and seemly Carpet of good and costly Stuffe, or Cloth, and all kept sweet and clean, in a strong and decent chest, with a Chalice, and Cover, and a Stoop, or Flagon; and a Bason for Almes and offerings; besides which, he hath a Poor-mans Box conveniently seated, to receive the charity of well minded people, and to lay up treasure for the sick and needy. And all this he doth, not as out of necessity, or as putting a holiness in the things, but as desiring to keep the middle way between superstition, and slovenlinesse, and as following the Apostles two great and admirable Rules in things of this nature: The first whereof is, Let all things be done decently, and in order: [I Cor. 14:40]The second, Let all things be done to edification, I Cor. 14:26]. For these two rules comprize and include the double object of our duty, God, and our neighbour; the first being for the honour of God; the second for the benefit of our neighbor. So that they excellently score out the way, and fully, and exactly contain, even in externall and indifferent things, what course is to be taken; and put them to great shame, who deny the Scripture to be perfect." [2]

Nowhere in The Country Parson does Herbert advocate the use of incense in the liturgy or the offering of incense apart from the liturgy. I have not come across any studies of how common a practice it was to perfume churches with incense at the great festivals during this period in English Church history. The churchwardens of the period did keep records of most of their expenditures. If they had purchased incense for their parish church, they would have recorded it in their accounts.

In the early seventeenth century Bishop Lancelot Andrews introduced the use of incense in the liturgy in his chapel. [3] Andrews raised the Lord’s Table on a footboard, adorned the table with a lavish frontal and placed the table against the east wall. He installed rails around the table and required communicants to kneel before the table to receive the communion elements. He replaced with a Gothic style chalice and paten the communion cup that had been introduced by the Reformers and had been widely used in the Elizabethan Church. [4] Andrews also inserted ceremonies into the 1559 and 1604 services of Holy Communion, which changed their shape. These ceremonies included the offering of the bread and wine to God at the offertory, the mixing of water with the wine in the chalice, and the lavabo, or washing of hands, after the preparation of the bread and wine, and the manual acts. [5] Other changes that Andrews made in the authorized liturgy were the addition of the response "Glory be to thee, O Lord, before the Gospel and the addition of the Gradual between the Epistle and the Gospel as in the Roman Missal. [6]Where Andrew diverged the most from the 1559 and 1604 Prayer Books was after the Sanctus. He followed the Prayer of Consecration with the Prayer of Oblation, the Lord’s Prayer, the Prayer of Humble Access, and the Agnes Dei. Andrews placed the Prayer of Oblation before the distribution of Communion because he believed that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, in which the priest first sent Christ up to God and God then sent Christ down to the communicants. [7] Once again we see the use of incense combined with the notion of the re-offering of Christ in the Eucharist.

Lancelot Andrews influenced William Laud, John Cosin, and the other seventeenth century Caroline High Churchmen. How Andrews had worshipped in his chapel, Laud, when he became Archbishop of Canterbury, sought to impose upon the whole English Church through his policy of Thorough. Laud’s harsh treatment of those who did not share his views and who opposed him eventually led not only to his downfall but also to the downfall of Charles I, the king whom he served and who did share his views.

Some of the views Kennedy expresses in his article would have earned him Laud’s approbation if he had lived in the reign of Charles I. Laud also believed that God had created beauty and the use of the beauty God had created glorified God. During Laud’s tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury church wardens were ordered to place the Lord’s Table against the east wall of the parish church and to surround the table with railings. Elaborate vestments and ceremonial were introduced into the worship of the English Church. Parish churches were decorated with gilded angels and stained-glass windows. The reaction to these changes were mixed. Some people welcomed the changes. A good number of people did not. They saw Laud’s efforts to make English parish churches more delightful to the eye and the other senses and to beautify the English liturgy as an attempt to reintroduce Romanism and papistry into the Church of England and to undermine further reform of the English Church. Even the Church of Rome adopted this view of the changes and twice offered Laud a cardinal’s hat if he would leave the Church of England for the Church of Rome. Rome also hoped that Laud’s defection would lead to the king’s defection.

What Kennedy fails to mention is that beautifying the church and the liturgy is often used as a rationale to introduce into the church and the liturgy ornaments and practices associated with doctrinal beliefs that are not scriptural. The ornaments and practices by themselves may be things indifferent—but the doctrines connected to them are not. The introduction of certain ornaments and practices into a church an its liturgy can begin the process of desensitization to pernicious doctrines, which leads to the tolerance and eventual acceptance of even more destructive and injurious doctrines. Both the Puritans and the Church of Rome in Laud’s day recognized that changes in the ornaments and practices of the church and the liturgy prepare the way for changes in the doctrine of the church. Doctrines can also piggyback into the church on such changes.

After the Restoration the Non-Jurors, High Churchmen like Thomas Ken who believed that their oath of allegiance to the Stuarts prevented them from swearing allegiance to William and Mary, and as Non-Conformists were forced to leave the Church of England, were the principal Anglicans who used incense in the liturgy in late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. The Non-Jurors split into two parties—the Usagers, who believed that certain usages, or practices, such as the oblation of the bread and wine before the communion, were essential for a valid Eucharist, and the Non-Usagers, who, while they believed that these usages were desirable, they were not necessary for the validity of the Eucharist. The Usagers taught that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. They believed that Christ offered himself as an atoning sacrifice for our redemption not on the cross but at the Last Supper. He had only been slain on the cross. If he had not offered himself at the Last Supper, the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice. [8] In the Eucharist the priest re-offers Christ’s sacrifice to God in the consecrated bread and wine, God accepts the sacrifice, and then returns it to the priest and other communicants to feast on, so that they by this means partake of the benefits of Christ’s death and passion. [9] This would eventually come to represent the Non-Juror view of the eucharistic sacrifice. The Non-Jurors also developed liturgies that gave expression to their doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice. The Prayer of Consecration in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer is based upon the consecration-prayer in one of their liturgies.

The use of incense became a badge of a particular brand of churchmanship in the nineteenth century. The Tractarian Movement brought not only a renewal of interest in what the English Church had believed and done before the Reformation but also stirred up interest in the innovations in doctrine and worship introduced into the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century and later. The Ritualists, an offshoot of the Tractarian Movement, imported into the Church of England post-Reformation Roman doctrinal beliefs and practices.

The revival of the use of incense during the nineteenth century was associated with the belief that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, as was its previous revival during the seventeenth century. Throughout the history of the Christian Church the use of incense and the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice in its various forms have gone hand in hand.

In reaction to ritualism some Anglican Churches, for example, the Church of Ireland, prohibited the use of incense in their canons:

"40. Use of incense forbidden
No incense or any substitution therefore or imitation thereof shall at any time be used in any church or chapel or other place in which the public services of the Church are celebrated." [10]

Today’s traditionalist Anglo-Catholics take an almost gleeful pride in their continued use of incense and other practices such as the ringing of sacring bells associated with the medieval doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

Twenty-first century liberals are drawn to ritualism since it provides a spiritual experience that is otherwise lacking in their lives. This includes the use of incense. They are also drawn to labyrinth walking, meditation, sand mandala creation rituals, sky dancing, and other non-Christian spiritual practices. What is missing from their spiritual lives is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

In "What We Do Matters" David Philips draws attention to the growing problem of evangelicals who are tolerating and even adopting practices that previous generations of evangelicals would have opposed as springing from another gospel. [11] Kennedy appears to be one of those evangelicals. Indeed a large number of these evangelicals can be found in Anglican and Episcopal churches in the United States. This can be explained partially by the history of evangelicalism in the Episcopal Church.

In the nineteenth century the Episcopal Church had a substantial number of evangelicals. They comprised almost one half of the bishops and nearly one third of the clergy in the 1840s and 1850s, the heyday of evangelicalism in the Episcopal Church. The growth and increasing influence of Tracterianism in the Episcopal Church and a growing concern over what was seen as latent Catholic theology in the 1789 Book of Common Prayer led to Bishop George David Cummins and the conservative evangelicals succeeding from the Episcopal Church and forming the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873. Those evangelicals like Philip Brooks who remained in the Episcopal Church compromised their beliefs and became Broad Churchmen. By 1900 evangelicalism had disappeared altogether from the Episcopal Church. For the next 70 odd years the Anglo-Catholics and the Broad Churchmen shaped the doctrine and worship of the Episcopal Church. The Broad Churchmen accepted an increasing number of the practices that Tractarianism had introduced. In the 1970s evangelicalism experienced something of a revival in the Episcopal Church in part due to the establishment of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania and in part due to the charismatic renewal movement.

The new evangelicals sit very loosely to the principles of evangelicalism that were greatly regarded by the evangelicals in the Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century. The latter were much less tolerant of ritualism and sacerdotalism than are the new evangelicals. The use of incense would have been dismissed out of hand because it is not free from the taint of its association with at least two forms of the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, which have no warrant in Scripture. The Old Testament confines the practice to the Aaronic priesthood and to the worship of the Tabernacle and the Temple. The New Testament contains no passage describing the use of incense in the worship of the New Testament Church, much less prescribing it. What we do find is a number of passages describing and prescribing the reading of Scripture; preaching; teaching; exhorting, or encouraging, each other; singing hymns, psalms, and spiritual songs; prophesying; speaking in tongues and interpreting; baptizing; and observing the Lord’s Supper to remember and proclaim Christ’s sacrifice of himself for our redemption.

While the New Testament does not prohibit the use of incense in Christian worship the practice may not be consistent with two important New Testament principles. The first principle is mentioned in the excerpt from George Herbert’s The Country Parson: "Let all things be done to edification" (1 Corinthians 14:26) The English Standard Version (ESV) translates this verse as follows: "Let all things be done for building up." In the preceding passages (1 Corinthians 14:1-25) Paul has urged the members of the church at Corinth to speak in intelligible words instead of tongues when prophesying in order to build up the church. He exhorts them to be mature, not children, in their thinking. He goes on to explain that if they are speaking in intelligible words, visitors to their meetings, who are outsiders or unbelievers, will be convicted by what they hear and will acknowledged that God is really among them. The principle that Paul is developing in these passages also applies the use of incense. Its use may be edifying to a few—the longtime members of Kennedy’s parish, the Church of the Good Shepherd—just as speaking in tongues builds up those who are speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:4). But as the reaction of the students from the Binghampton University’s Intervarsity Fellowship suggests, it was not edifying to them. Since Kennedy’s parish has been steeped in Anglo-Catholicism for most of its 125 history, its use may not really be edifying to the parishioners. The use of incense may be associated in their minds with a number of unbiblical doctrines and it may reinforce these doctrines. It certainly not going to build up the first time worship visitor who comes from a conservative evangelical background and is immediately put off by the practice. Nor is it going to edify the visitor who has been dabbling in Wicca or experimenting with Buddhism. Both of those religions use incense. They will equate its use in the Church of the Good Shepherd with their past experiences. They may return for a second visit intrigued by the ceremonial, the vestments, the candles, and the use of incense but their first visit has not helped to establish them in the Christian faith. They are only attracted by the church’s ethos. The Episcopal Church unfortunately has a long history of attracting people with its particular ethos but not helping them to meet Christ and to become his disciples.

The ceremonial, the vestments, the candles, and the use of incense may actually frighten some first time worship visitors. One of my nieces brought a girl from her school, with her to the Easter Vigil at our parish church. The girl normally attended a local Church of God church. She took one look at the priest, the deacon, the cantor, and the servers, the copes, the surplices, and the albs, the swirling incense and flickering candles, heard the chanting, and fled from the church. She could not be coaxed back into the church. It was far from an edifying experience for her. On the other hand, singing a hymn or a worship song and then hearing a Scripture reading, a sermon, and a prayer would have been immediately intelligible to her: she would have been edified, built up.

The second principle is also found in Paul’s First letter to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. While the passage does not specifically refer to incense, the principle underlying it is applicable to incense or to anything that may wound the conscience of a fellow Christian and cause him to stumble. Incense does not commend us to God any more than food. We are no worse off if we do not use it and no better off if we do. If our use of incense becomes a stumbling block to fellow Christians, as in the case of the Binghampton University students who attend the Church of the Good Shepherd, then we should discontinue its use. We should not use it, lest we make someone else stumble.

We can make a fellow Christian stumble in a number of ways. First, we are doing something that he may believe is forbidden to Christians. Second, what we are doing may be associated in his mind with unscriptural doctrinal beliefs and may reinforce these beliefs in his mind. We may encourage him to believe and do what the Bible does not really sanction. Third, what we are doing may to him appear inconsistent with what we profess to believe. Kennedy by his own admission is a Calvinist in a number of his theological views. But at the same time he gives countenance to the use of incense in the liturgy. This use of incense is, however, not congruent with Reformed doctrinal beliefs. Someone who is well acquainted with these beliefs is going to question his commitment to the teachings of the Bible and the Reformation. On the other hand, someone else who is not well acquainted with Reformed doctrinal beliefs may assume that the use of incense is consistent with these beliefs. He may assume that certain doctrines and practices that are also not consistent with Reformed theology are harmonious with its doctrinal beliefs.

A Biblical truth that is found in both the Old Testament and the New Testament may also be applicable to the use of incense. In Isaiah 1:11-14 God, speaking through the prophet Isaiah condemns the formalism of the people of Israel. They are scrupulous in obey God’s ceremonial law. They offer the prescribed sacrifices and observe the appointed holy days and festivals. However, they do not obey God’s moral commandments. To God their daily offering of incense in the Temple, a practice that God instituted and sanctioned has become an abomination: God detests it.

Formalism also plagued the people of Israel during the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. In Matthew 23:23-28 Jesus strongly criticizes the Pharisees and teachers of the law’s scrupulous observance of the law in such matters as tithing dill and cumin and cleansing cups and plates and warns the multitudes and his disciples against following their example. The Pharisees and the scribes, he points to their attention, neglect the weightier things of the law—justice and mercy and faithfulness. When the Pharisees and scribes had earlier questioned Jesus why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders, his response included this quotation from Isaiah 29:13: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:1-9)

The use of incense, elaborate vestments, candles, minutely worked out ceremonial, and other appurtenances of the ritualism that the Ritualists introduced into the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century, as well as a fixed liturgy, make Anglicans and Episcopalians particularly susceptible to formalism. Bishop J. C. Ryle and the evangelicals repeatedly sought to point this susceptibility to the attention of the English Church in the nineteenth century. What God, however, desires from us are not the strict observance of forms but the worship of the heart, which expresses itself not only in praise and thanksgiving but also in godly living and good deeds. It is worship that springs from our restored relationship with God, as well as our gratitude for the grace God has shown us. We were created to worship God and to glorify him. Having been reconciled to God, it is only natural for us to want to do that for which we were created—to worship God and glorify him "not only with our lips, but in our lives".

In attempting to make the liturgy simpler, more understandable, and more biblical and therefore more edifying, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer stripped away things like the use of incense in the sixteenth century. In doing so, he also made the worship of the English Church less susceptible to formalism. While he did not completely inoculate the Church against formalism, he took great strides in the right direction. Cranmer’s crowning achievement—the 1552 Book of Common Prayer—was used only briefly during his lifetime. However, with three changes in 1559 and some further revisions in 1604—the 1552 Prayer Book would be "the" Prayer Book for almost 100 years. Those who were not able to buy a copy memorized its contents so that they could join in the prayers.

Formalism had beset the English Church before the Reformation. A substantial number of the priests who said Mass did not understand what they were saying. The prayers of the Mass had become a magic formula that they recited in order to turn the bread and wine into Christ so that they could offer Christ to God for the living and the dead. Few ordinary people understood Latin. The more devote said their own private devotions while the priest said Mass. The climax of the Mass for the laity was the elevation and adoration of the consecrated host that they had been taught became Christ. Incense was offered at the Mass as well as "the unblemished offering" of Christ.

Two New Testament passages Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3-4 are sometimes cited as support for the use of incense in Anglican worship. But do these passages actually establish precedence for its use? A careful examination of these verses and their context reveals that the references to incense are incidental to John’s narrative. Nothing in these verses and their context suggests that John’s intent was to establish precedence for the use of incense in Christian worship. In Revelation 5:8 golden bowls full of incense that the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders are holding are identified as the prayers of the saints. In Revelation 15:7 the four living creatures give the seven angels seven gold bowls full of the wrath of God. In Revelation 8:3-4 the angel who offered incense with the prayers of the saints before the throne, after he has made this offering, fills the censer with fire from the altar and throws it on the earth. Then the seven angels who have been given seven trumpets prepare to blow them.

To cite these verses from Revelation in support of the use of incense is to resort to a common form of Scripture-twisting known as "proof-texting". A reference to incense in a text, however, is not sufficient grounds to claim that the text provides a Scriptural basis for the use of incense.

As we have seen, no warrant for the use of incense in Christian worship, much less Anglican worship, can be found in the New Testament. References to the use of incense in the Old Testament are to the worship of the Tabernacle and the Temple, in which the offering of incense is restricted to the Aaaronic priesthood, to the worship of graven images in contravention to the Ten Commandments, and to the worship of the nations at a future time after the Day of the Lord. None of these references establish precedence for the use of incense in Christian worship. We have also seen that the use of incense has a long association with the conception of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, which has no basis in scripture and which the English Reformers rejected and evangelical Anglicans still reject for that reason. We have further seen that the use of incense may not be very edifying to outsiders and unbelievers. It can cause Christians to stumble. It contributes to formalism. The use of incense may not be prohibited in the New Testament. However, if we put all these considerations together, they preclude the use of incense. As Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 23-25, "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor."

Kennedy concludes his article with a rhetorical quest, "Why doesn't everybody use incense?" To the list of reasons that I have given so far for not using incense, let me add one more: A number of people are allergic to incense smoke. It burns their eyes and nostrils and affects their breathing. Do I need to say anything else?

Endnotes:
[1]Aubrey Mulphurs, Doing Church: A Biblical Guide for leading Ministries Through Change, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1999), 81.
[2] George Herbert, "Chap. XIII The Parson’s Church," A Priest to the Temple or the Country Parson, His Character, & c., Electronic edition on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/herbert/parson.html
[3] Marianne Dorman, "Andrewes and English Catholics’ Response to Cranmer’s Prayer Books of 1549 And 1552," Unpublished Paper for Reformation Studies Conference, 1999. Westminster College, Cambridge, 2-3, unpublished paper on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/essays/dorman2.pdf
[4] Ibid., 2-3.
[5] Ibid., 3-4.
[6] Ibid., 5.
[7] Ibid., 6-7.
[8] 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
[9] Broxap, The Late Non-Jurors, 1-2.
[10]The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and ceremonies of the Church According to the Use of the Church of Ireland, etc., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1926) 355.
[11] David Philips, "What We Do Matters," Cross+Way, Issue Autumn 2008 No. 110, published article on the Internet at:http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_110_WhatWeDoMatters.pdf

14 comments:

Matt Kennedy said...

Hi Robin, nice rejoinder. I think you have misunderstood my article on a number of levels.

1. Nowhere did I suggest that the use of incense is "mandatory" nor did I think it so.

2. I agree that it is not edifying to some if it is not then would certainly favor not using it

3. You seem to switch back and forth in your critique from a regulative to a normative use of scripture. I embrace the normative approach...what is not forbidden in principle or explicitly in scripture may be practiced. I think that is most consistent with Article 6 of the 39 articles. The regulative principle teaches, by contrast, that all practices must have a "precedent" grounded in scripture. I do not hold to that and neither do most Anglicans. If you want to argue for that principle we would need

4. Because I embrace the normative principle your arguments from Anglican tradition have little bearing...I know that many opposed its use. I simply find no scriptural warrant for forbidding it.

5. The use of incense imagery in heaven is indeed, "symbolic" but it does, in principle, cut out the argument that incense was primarily bound up with the Levitical system...which is why I employed it...the same is true for the Malachi text.

6. Since incense is not necessarily tied to Levitical use in scripture...it's use now is neither bound by nor limited to the strictures of levitical law.

Matt

Matt Kennedy said...

ack...sorry for the incomplete post and the typos above. I posted before I was ready...what I was going to say in 4 was:

"If you want to argue for that principle we would need to back up and speak in more general terms than the specific use of incense."

Robin G. Jordan said...

My position is that it is desirable to have a clear warrant for a practice but where such a warrant is absent then a practice may be permissible if it is not prohibited or inconsistent with one or more passages of scripture. I am very mindful of what the 39 Articles say about expounding one passage of scripture so that it is contrary to another. I am also mindful of what Paul said--what may be "lawful," allowable," is not always helpful or edifying. I do not take the position that silence on a matter should always be interpreted as prohibition.

Except for references to incense that are incidental to the narrative (e.g. Luke and Revelation), we find no discussion of incense in the New Testament. We certainly find nothing to suggest that the apostles used incense or encouraged its use. This would suggest that we should approach the use of incense with caution. A practice for which there is a clear mandate is preferrable over one that is adopted because it is not specifically prohibited.

The apostles were also Jews. Just as some scholars point out that they would not have viewed the bread and wine of the Eucharist as Jesus' real body and blood because of the Jewish prohibition against eating blood, we must also consider that they did not use incense because of the Mosaic regulations limiting its use to the Aaronic priesthood.Its use does not come up in their writings because they did not see it as something they needed to comment on. The Old Testament already did that.

From my perspective the use of incense is one of those liberties of which we should not take advantage. The use of incense is historically too closely tied to the conception of the Eucharist as a sacrifice due to how Catholics have misinterpreted Malachi 1:11. The doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice has no real basis in scripture. The eucharist is not a sacrifice but a meal upon a sacrifice.

I can understand your use of incense for pastoral reasons but in the long term I would recommend weaning your congregation away from the practice.

Matt Kennedy said...

hi Robin,

Thanks, I agree with much of your comment above...but I think the reason we disagree about incense may be tied to what you say here:

"We certainly find nothing to suggest that the apostles used incense or encouraged its use. This would suggest that we should approach the use of incense with caution."

You, again, here argue from the regulative principle, which as I noted, I do not accept. But more importantly, if apostolic use is the criterion then we are in a real quandry since we really have very little sense for what the apostles used and did not use and if we are to structure our eucharists around their's then every church I've ever seen is in error when tested by 1 Cor 10-11. We no longer have Eucharistic meals. We have bites and sips.

Moreover, we find nothing in scripture that shows that the apostles used organs or electrical instruments...on what basis do we deviate from apostolic practice?

Robin G. Jordan said...

Matt,

Among the reasons that Article XXII condemns worshiping of images and relics and the invocation of saints is that these practices are "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture." In Article XXV we read that the sacraments were "not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, to be carried about." Article XXXII tells us that "bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded by God's Law" to be celibate. In all these instances practices are partially if not completely rejected because they have no warrant in Scripture. The Bible does not prescribe them.

In a hermeneutic that is based upon the Articles one is not wholly at liberty to adopt a practice simply because it is not forbidden by Scripture or the Bible is silent on the matter. I believe that we err when we invariably interpret silence as permission (positive hermeneutic) or prohibition (negative hermeneutic). For exampe, the Bible neither prescribes nor prohibits the blessing of same sex unions. Liberals interpret this lack of a specific prescription or prohibition as allowing them to bless these relationships. Conservative evangelicals like me would disagree, drawing attention to God's prohibition of sexual activity between members of the same sex and sanctification of unions between members of the opposite gender.

I advocate what I would describe as a "cautious" positive hermeneutic. In evaluating whether a practice may be deemed as scriptural, one first looks to see if the practice may be considered as grounded in warranty of Scripture. One then looks for other passages of Scripture that may be relevant to the practice. One then draws one's final conclusions from the consideration of all these factors. This means that sometime silence is interpreted as permission and sometimes as prohibition.

Perhaps we do need to ask ourselves is our practice of bites and sips really expressive of the what Christ instituted at the Last Supper. Have we settled for sacramental minimalism?

A cautious positive hermeneutic would allow for wafers made by nuns and stamped with an image of the cross and for the wearing of street clothes on Sunday mornings.

Rev. David Justin Lynch said...

As a progressive Anglo-Catholic and as a thurifer of over 40 years' experience, I find Mr. Jordan's article patently offensive and exemplative of the kind of thinking I have militantly opposed all my life. Mr. Jordan needs a good dosage of incense on a regular basis so he can get used to it if heaven is in his future plans. He would do well to remember that there are but two smells in the afterlife: incense and brimstone. Take your pick.

apodeictic said...

A good reply. I get the impression that evangelicals such as yourself are rare in American Anglicanism (whether TEC or any of the other bodies). You hit the nail on the head when you state:

What Kennedy fails to mention is that beautifying the church and the liturgy is often used as a rationale to introduce into the church and the liturgy ornaments and practices associated with doctrinal beliefs that are not scriptural. The ornaments and practices by themselves may be things indifferent — but the doctrines connected to them are not. The introduction of certain ornaments and practices into a church an its liturgy can begin the process of desensitization to pernicious doctrines, which leads to the tolerance and eventual acceptance of even more destructive and injurious doctrines.

That's the heart of the matter as far as I'm concerned. That's why Anglicans have historically opposed distinctive eucharistic vestments, adoption of the Eastward position, the elevation of the host etc. These practices are not in themselves necessarily wrong, but can reinforce wrong beliefs.

Of course an argument can be made that times change and that the battles of 16th and 17th century England no longer need to be fought in 21st century America (or England or Tanzania for that matter). While I'm sympathetic to such arguments in theory, in practice I'm much less so with the re-adoption of many practices abandoned at the time of the Reformation. The very fact that the Church today is full of people (bishops, presbyters and deacons no less) who hold less than scriptural views of the Lord's Supper and the role of the president at the Lord's Supper means it is just as important as ever that our practices don't reinforce these heresies.

Andrew Chapman said...

Psalm 141 v 2: Let my prayer be set before you as incense, the lifting up of my hands as the evening offering (minchah)- points with beautiful precision to 1 Timothy 2 v 8: I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without wrath or doubting - as the fulfillment in the church age of Malachi 1 v 11: In every place incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure offering (minchah). I agree that there may be a further fulfillment with literal incense being offered to YHWH in the millenium. For now, let the men lift up holy hands in every place, praying fervently for revival in our cities and nations. In Jesus' Name. http://mensprayer.net. Blessings, Andrew

cynic said...

King Edward VI removed ANY Catholic portions of worship from Protestantism.
Why then do Protestant churches and cathedrals sometimes use incense?
Am I Satanic because it affects my breathing? I cannot abide the smell, and it spoils my involvement in the service.

cynic said...

Having now re-perused previous comments, I must answer that of DavidJustinLynch in that there are many people in the world with no sense of smell.
It would also appear to me that the references to incense in the Old Testament have been superseded by the Protestant protestations, and are therefore now irrelevant.

Rev. David Justin Lynch said...

Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."

If God says do it, we do it. Nothing further need be said.

Robin G. Jordan said...

David,

"If God says do it, we do it. Nothing further need be said."

Were you circumcised on the seventh day with a stone knife? Were you the first born of your parents' children? If so, did your parents go to the Temple and offer a sacrifice in your stead after you were born? Why did you shave off your forelocks when the Old Testament forbids it. I suspect that there many other passages of Scripture that you disregard.

Did I hear you say that we are no longer bound by the teachings of these Scripture passages? But did not you just insist that if God says do it, we do it. Then why are not you doing what God said do?

Malachi 1.11 is not a commandment to burn incense in Christian worship. God does not want ceremony and ritual whatever you may have been taught. He desires the worship of the heart. He desires that you devote your life fully to his service not to swinging a thurible! To God that is sweeter than the fragrance of incense.

Tim Mildenhall said...

Cranmer's 1548 Preface to BCP On Ceremonies is helpful here.

To summarise: acceptable worship is not to do with the ceremony but has to do with freedom in the Spirit.

My conclusion is that incense is too unimportant to ban - it's got little to do with the essence of worship. If a brother or sister wants to use it, I am not their boss.

However that begs the question of what we are urged to pursue in the Scriptures. Hebrews 12 and 13 addresses (Jewish) believers under pressure (internal and external) to adopt Jewish ceremonial practice.

The contrast in 12:18ff is between the visible Mt Sinai and the invisible Mt Zion. Ch 13 pushes the one who is in Christ already gathered to the throne of God, to offer as acceptable worship brotherly love, hospitality, public alignment with Christ's followers.

Incense is, at best marginally relevant to this worship (it may help those who are used to it because of their liturgical experience). At worst it is unloving - giving someone an asthma attack by insisting on using your optional worship aid could not be loving.

The test is 'is it an idol?' The way to find out is to take it away. If someone can't worship God without incense then you mustn't have anything to do with it, for it is an idol. If they're not fussed, then the other factors come into play.

That's a bit cheeky, I know, but I'm serious and this has been my practice in pastoral care for more than 20 years.

Unknown said...

The scriptural notations have been exhausted in the comments,there is no where in scripture that forbids the use and many both old and new that speak only positively about the use..The Roman church isn't the only traditional church that uses it,the orthodox and coptics do as well..The opinion in this article seems very puritan and phariseetic in nature..God's glory has always uplifted by the prayer of the saints,through the symbology of incense..