http://www.anglican-nig.org/Nnewi2008Communique.pdf
[Global South Anglican] 31 Mar 2008--1. The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), comprising the House of Bishops, and delegates from the House of Clergy and the House of Laity, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the leadership of the Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, Primate of All Nigeria, met at St. Andrew’s Diocesan Center, Nnewi, Anambra State between 26th and 29th March 2008. We are profoundly grateful to the Rt. Rev’d Godwin Okpala, the Bishop, Diocese of Nnewi, the Governor, His Excellency, Mr. Peter Obi, the Government of Anambra State, HRH, Igwe Kenneth Orizu, Igwe III of Nnewi, and the
good people of the Diocese of Nnewi, for the warm hospitality and generosity shown to us.
2. We were privileged to take part in the dedication of All Saints’ Anglican Church Parish,
Irefi – Oraifite (The City of Joy) Ekwusigo Local Government Area. This magnificent
edifice was made possible through the generosity of a single donor, Sir Emeka Ofor, who
was present to be honoured for his generosity. In his dedication sermon the Primate
reminded us that we can only enter into the House of the Lord when our hearts and hands
are made clean by the redemptive work of Christ. He also encouraged other benefactors
Pages
▼
Monday, March 31, 2008
Uganda: Gays Might Split the Church
http://allafrica.com/stories/200803310914.html
[allAfrica.com] 31 Mar 2008--The future of the Anglican Communion seems to be descending into an irreconcilable route, that very soon some Provinces might succeed from the Communion altogether because of the homosexuality ridge. It is a ridge indeed because I can't remember a time when the Christian church was as divided as it is today. I have just returned from a conference where, as a Christian, I was rather embarrassed seeing fellow Christians at each other's throats as we debated homosexuality. Either side claimed the biblical witness to justify their arguments.
We may use the bible to justify our actions but since I became a committed Christian at the age of 21 in 1982, I have never found any vagueness in the bible. What is at stake in the Anglican Communion is whether the African church should accept homosexuality as have some Christians and churches in other parts of the Communion. And since it is accepted in some of the dioceses elsewhere, it was assumed that the African church would automatically agree because that was been the trend before.
The African Church is opposed to homosexuality on Scriptural argument. The scriptural argument begins with the book of Genesis as a prime example of the predominant biblical affirmation of heterosexual relationship. In Genesis 1:27-28, humanity in the form of both male and female is created in the image of God. Just as Genesis 1 ends with a declaration that the order of creation involving the creation of man and woman is very good, Genesis 2 ends with the climatic statement that the woman is the reason why a man leaves his father and mother, to become one flesh with his wife in Genesis 2:24.
If this powerful affirmation of heterosexual relations as the carefully planned order of creation in these two introductory chapters of the bible is not striking to modern thinking, it certainly was to the writers of the Holiness Code in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and to St Paul in Romans 1:26-27.
[allAfrica.com] 31 Mar 2008--The future of the Anglican Communion seems to be descending into an irreconcilable route, that very soon some Provinces might succeed from the Communion altogether because of the homosexuality ridge. It is a ridge indeed because I can't remember a time when the Christian church was as divided as it is today. I have just returned from a conference where, as a Christian, I was rather embarrassed seeing fellow Christians at each other's throats as we debated homosexuality. Either side claimed the biblical witness to justify their arguments.
We may use the bible to justify our actions but since I became a committed Christian at the age of 21 in 1982, I have never found any vagueness in the bible. What is at stake in the Anglican Communion is whether the African church should accept homosexuality as have some Christians and churches in other parts of the Communion. And since it is accepted in some of the dioceses elsewhere, it was assumed that the African church would automatically agree because that was been the trend before.
The African Church is opposed to homosexuality on Scriptural argument. The scriptural argument begins with the book of Genesis as a prime example of the predominant biblical affirmation of heterosexual relationship. In Genesis 1:27-28, humanity in the form of both male and female is created in the image of God. Just as Genesis 1 ends with a declaration that the order of creation involving the creation of man and woman is very good, Genesis 2 ends with the climatic statement that the woman is the reason why a man leaves his father and mother, to become one flesh with his wife in Genesis 2:24.
If this powerful affirmation of heterosexual relations as the carefully planned order of creation in these two introductory chapters of the bible is not striking to modern thinking, it certainly was to the writers of the Holiness Code in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and to St Paul in Romans 1:26-27.
A Prayer for Missions
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/11319/
[TitusOneNine] 31 Mar 2008--God of truth and love; Father Son and Holy Spirit, Hear our prayer for those who do not know You. We ask that they may come to a saving knowledge of the truth and that Your Name may be praised among all peoples of the world. Sustain, inspire and enlighten Your servants who bring them the Gospel. Bring fresh vigor to wavering faith; sustain our faith when it is still fragile. Continually renew missionary zeal in ourselves and in the Church; raise up new missionaries who will follow You to the ends of the world Make us witnesses to Your goodness; full of love, strength and faith – for Your glory and the salvation of the entire world.
[TitusOneNine] 31 Mar 2008--God of truth and love; Father Son and Holy Spirit, Hear our prayer for those who do not know You. We ask that they may come to a saving knowledge of the truth and that Your Name may be praised among all peoples of the world. Sustain, inspire and enlighten Your servants who bring them the Gospel. Bring fresh vigor to wavering faith; sustain our faith when it is still fragile. Continually renew missionary zeal in ourselves and in the Church; raise up new missionaries who will follow You to the ends of the world Make us witnesses to Your goodness; full of love, strength and faith – for Your glory and the salvation of the entire world.
The ENS article on San Joaquin Doings Yesterday
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/11347/
[TitusOneNine] 31 Mar 2008--The call to elect a new Standing Committee drew protest from the Rev. Robert Eaton, rector of St. John's Episcopal Parish in Tulare, California, and two lay delegates. Eaton, who said they wanted to protest "in as godly and Christian a manner as possible," told the convention that he had never resigned from the Standing Committee and thus should not have his seat taken away from him.
Tulare delegate George Sutton objected to what he called the "illegality" of the special convention, claiming that only the Standing Committee can call a special convention. Gillian Busch, the other lay delegate, said that the Tulare parish had not been included in the organization of the steering committee that worked toward the convention.
The Rev. Mark Hall, convention chair, replied that "this matter has been settled."
How was it settled exactly? By whom and according to what reasoning and sourcing and analysis? Read it all.
[TitusOneNine] 31 Mar 2008--The call to elect a new Standing Committee drew protest from the Rev. Robert Eaton, rector of St. John's Episcopal Parish in Tulare, California, and two lay delegates. Eaton, who said they wanted to protest "in as godly and Christian a manner as possible," told the convention that he had never resigned from the Standing Committee and thus should not have his seat taken away from him.
Tulare delegate George Sutton objected to what he called the "illegality" of the special convention, claiming that only the Standing Committee can call a special convention. Gillian Busch, the other lay delegate, said that the Tulare parish had not been included in the organization of the steering committee that worked toward the convention.
The Rev. Mark Hall, convention chair, replied that "this matter has been settled."
How was it settled exactly? By whom and according to what reasoning and sourcing and analysis? Read it all.
A hierarchical church?
http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2008/03/hierarchical-church.html
[To All the World] 31 Mar 2008--In light of my recent posts speaking up for Bishops William Cox and Edward MacBurney, someone wrote asking if I was perhaps putting myself and the seminary I represent in the crosshairs of the liberal establishment. Specifically he asked if The Episcopal Church had any control over Nashotah House's property? Does the Dennis Canon apply to seminaries?
No, I replied, the Dennis Canon only applies to the real and personal property of "any Parish, Mission, or Congregation." But that started me thinking. What if, at some future General Convention, someone introduced a new canon stating that the property of all seminaries that had historically served the Episcopal Church would, from that time forward, be held in trust for the Episcopal Church. Would that make it so? Could the Episcopal Church do that?
No, it could not. In the first place, the seminaries have been founded, chartered, and incorporated as free-standing institutions. The Episcopal Church has never asserted ownership of the seminaries.
[To All the World] 31 Mar 2008--In light of my recent posts speaking up for Bishops William Cox and Edward MacBurney, someone wrote asking if I was perhaps putting myself and the seminary I represent in the crosshairs of the liberal establishment. Specifically he asked if The Episcopal Church had any control over Nashotah House's property? Does the Dennis Canon apply to seminaries?
No, I replied, the Dennis Canon only applies to the real and personal property of "any Parish, Mission, or Congregation." But that started me thinking. What if, at some future General Convention, someone introduced a new canon stating that the property of all seminaries that had historically served the Episcopal Church would, from that time forward, be held in trust for the Episcopal Church. Would that make it so? Could the Episcopal Church do that?
No, it could not. In the first place, the seminaries have been founded, chartered, and incorporated as free-standing institutions. The Episcopal Church has never asserted ownership of the seminaries.
The Protest text
http://sanjoaquin.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/the-protest-text/
[Surrounded] 31 Mar 2008--This text was handed to the person identified as the Secretary of Convention for inclusion in the minutes of the Meeting. The person identified as Parliamentarian (and Chancellor) ruled that it could not be included except by approved Motion from the floor of the Meeting. To be consistent with our position of not acting in any legal fashion at the meeting, we chose not to do so, nor to ask anyone else to do our work for us. We knew that some of the proceedings were being recorded and there would be the potential of some sort of media posting of the protest. We therefore chose to exhibit the complete prepared text of the protest here on Surrounded. In posting, a few grammatical errors have been corrected from the hand-written text used at the microphone, as well as, in two places, a one or two-word edit of a phrase where the meaning was not immediately clear .
[Surrounded] 31 Mar 2008--This text was handed to the person identified as the Secretary of Convention for inclusion in the minutes of the Meeting. The person identified as Parliamentarian (and Chancellor) ruled that it could not be included except by approved Motion from the floor of the Meeting. To be consistent with our position of not acting in any legal fashion at the meeting, we chose not to do so, nor to ask anyone else to do our work for us. We knew that some of the proceedings were being recorded and there would be the potential of some sort of media posting of the protest. We therefore chose to exhibit the complete prepared text of the protest here on Surrounded. In posting, a few grammatical errors have been corrected from the hand-written text used at the microphone, as well as, in two places, a one or two-word edit of a phrase where the meaning was not immediately clear .
GAFCON and the highway - a footsoldier reflects
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7981
[Virtue Online] 31 Mar 2008--The following was first published as a Letter to the Church of England Newspaper
It is often said that the Anglican Communion is at a crossroad. I believe this to be an inaccurate description of the reality; we have long passed that juncture! A more apt picture is that of travelling on a highway (motorway). Anyone who has driven on a highway knows that to miss an exit is to consign oneself to a diversion of considerable distance and time. If one persists on that particular journey, one reaches, unsurprisingly, a different destination! To reach the original intended destination, one has to retrace one's steps and rejoin the particular exit he mistakenly left. All analogies fall down at some point, but the application of this analogy, with respect to the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion, is clear.
It seems to me that many of our erstwhile brethren in North America left the rest of the Communion decades ago. It was, however, a deliberate rather than an unintended afterthought. The concept of retracing their steps and rejoining the rest of the Communion, at the point they first left, is anathema to them. Their leaders have time and again reiterated (somewhat patronisingly) how, given time and proper theological understanding, the rest of us will be sufficiently enlightened to join them on their travel. A recent meeting of North American theologians reminded us that the rest of the Communion is 40 years behind in our theological development!
[Virtue Online] 31 Mar 2008--The following was first published as a Letter to the Church of England Newspaper
It is often said that the Anglican Communion is at a crossroad. I believe this to be an inaccurate description of the reality; we have long passed that juncture! A more apt picture is that of travelling on a highway (motorway). Anyone who has driven on a highway knows that to miss an exit is to consign oneself to a diversion of considerable distance and time. If one persists on that particular journey, one reaches, unsurprisingly, a different destination! To reach the original intended destination, one has to retrace one's steps and rejoin the particular exit he mistakenly left. All analogies fall down at some point, but the application of this analogy, with respect to the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion, is clear.
It seems to me that many of our erstwhile brethren in North America left the rest of the Communion decades ago. It was, however, a deliberate rather than an unintended afterthought. The concept of retracing their steps and rejoining the rest of the Communion, at the point they first left, is anathema to them. Their leaders have time and again reiterated (somewhat patronisingly) how, given time and proper theological understanding, the rest of us will be sufficiently enlightened to join them on their travel. A recent meeting of North American theologians reminded us that the rest of the Communion is 40 years behind in our theological development!
Uganda: Gay Row - U.S. Pastor Supports Country On Boycott
http://allafrica.com/stories/200803281265.html
[allAfrica.com] 31 Mar 2008--Famed American pastor, Dr Rick Warren has said he supports the decision by Ugandan bishops to boycott the forthcoming Lamebth conference in England, United Kingdom.
The conference brings together Bishops of the Anglican Communion from all 38 Provinces of the Communion every 10 years.
"The Church of England is wrong and I support the Church of Uganda(CoU) on the boycott,"Dr Warren said on Thursday shortly after arriving in Uganda.
[allAfrica.com] 31 Mar 2008--Famed American pastor, Dr Rick Warren has said he supports the decision by Ugandan bishops to boycott the forthcoming Lamebth conference in England, United Kingdom.
The conference brings together Bishops of the Anglican Communion from all 38 Provinces of the Communion every 10 years.
"The Church of England is wrong and I support the Church of Uganda(CoU) on the boycott,"Dr Warren said on Thursday shortly after arriving in Uganda.
An Inconvenient Truth: Ecclesial Warming Ahead
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/29/an-inconvenient-truth-ecclesial-warming-ahead/
[Anglican Mainstream] 31 Mar 2008--Though many of our global readers will understand that recent events in TEC do not look encouraging, they may not realise the full implications or be able to get their heads around all the messy and complicated legal and political (church) issues. What can not doubted is that PB Katie Jefferts Schori is acting in increasingly hostile, stressy ways, as shown by her latest actions: ‘Get those awful bishops out of here now! And I don’t care what it takes to do it!’ In fact, one would almost pity her, were she not so relentlessly and mercilessly aggressive in hunting down and hounding out her opposition - and in fact it is starting to feel like one of the ideological purges of the past. Katie would have been wise not to have emphasised the delights of ‘inclusion’ and especially including those with whom she did not agree. The truth is, she can not stand them if they do not toe her party line first but she does not appear to have the courage to admit it even to herself.
Canon David Anderson steps us through these events with alacrity, describes what is involved and why it is so significant. He explains the detail in relation to the larger picture and makes it interesting, a far more impressive feat. Even if ’technicalities’ aren’t your thing - they are not mine! - they are vitally important here. Please do read on.
[Anglican Mainstream] 31 Mar 2008--Though many of our global readers will understand that recent events in TEC do not look encouraging, they may not realise the full implications or be able to get their heads around all the messy and complicated legal and political (church) issues. What can not doubted is that PB Katie Jefferts Schori is acting in increasingly hostile, stressy ways, as shown by her latest actions: ‘Get those awful bishops out of here now! And I don’t care what it takes to do it!’ In fact, one would almost pity her, were she not so relentlessly and mercilessly aggressive in hunting down and hounding out her opposition - and in fact it is starting to feel like one of the ideological purges of the past. Katie would have been wise not to have emphasised the delights of ‘inclusion’ and especially including those with whom she did not agree. The truth is, she can not stand them if they do not toe her party line first but she does not appear to have the courage to admit it even to herself.
Canon David Anderson steps us through these events with alacrity, describes what is involved and why it is so significant. He explains the detail in relation to the larger picture and makes it interesting, a far more impressive feat. Even if ’technicalities’ aren’t your thing - they are not mine! - they are vitally important here. Please do read on.
Anglican Angst: Spiritual Schizophrenia? From Richard Bunn, Diocese of Toronto
http://www.lambethconference.net/canada/?p=219
[lambethconference.nt] 31 Mar 2008--THOSE WHO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, OR WHO DESIRE TO CHANGE ANCIENT BOUNDARIES, RISK THE FUTURE OF SOCIETY, THROWING IT UP INTO THE AIR AND WATCHING WITH BAITED BREATH AS IT COMES CRASHING DOWN TO EARTH. THEY THINK THAT A PARACHUTE MAY APPEAR AND, IF NOT, THAT THE LANDING WILL BE SPECTACULAR. THE OBSERVING THEIST IS LEFT TO PRAY THAT GOD HAS ADEQUATELY PLANNED FOR THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.
Martin Luther said,
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. To be steady on all fronts besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point”
A break between thought and action, or lack of appropriate engagement with reality, is one of the ways that schizophrenia has been described. Some of us, even some of our leaders, exhibit questionable symptoms and appear somewhat disconnected from God, His people and the world. We function in our own virtual worlds, even use our own unintelligible language, and we deny the reality that both our global society and the ecclesial family have grown far beyond the boundaries outlined during the Reformation.
[lambethconference.nt] 31 Mar 2008--THOSE WHO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, OR WHO DESIRE TO CHANGE ANCIENT BOUNDARIES, RISK THE FUTURE OF SOCIETY, THROWING IT UP INTO THE AIR AND WATCHING WITH BAITED BREATH AS IT COMES CRASHING DOWN TO EARTH. THEY THINK THAT A PARACHUTE MAY APPEAR AND, IF NOT, THAT THE LANDING WILL BE SPECTACULAR. THE OBSERVING THEIST IS LEFT TO PRAY THAT GOD HAS ADEQUATELY PLANNED FOR THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.
Martin Luther said,
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. To be steady on all fronts besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point”
A break between thought and action, or lack of appropriate engagement with reality, is one of the ways that schizophrenia has been described. Some of us, even some of our leaders, exhibit questionable symptoms and appear somewhat disconnected from God, His people and the world. We function in our own virtual worlds, even use our own unintelligible language, and we deny the reality that both our global society and the ecclesial family have grown far beyond the boundaries outlined during the Reformation.
Presiding Bishop Seeking Quicker Way to Intervene Before Other Dioceses Leave
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/29/presiding-bishop-seeking-quicker-way-to-intervene-before-other-dioceses-leave
[The Living Church] 31 Mar 2008--Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori made it clear Friday night that she will direct The Episcopal Church to move ahead to reconstitute the Diocese of San Joaquin and to establish control over church property swiftly. In addition, she said, she intends to begin the process of revising the denomination’s canons to allow it to deal more expeditiously with breakaway bishops.
“I expect to see revisions to the canons to deal with situations like the one that you have been living with in San Joaquin for several years,” she said.
The Presiding Bishop spoke at a question-and-answer session at St. Anne’s Church, Stockton, Calif., on March 28 after taking part in a service. The first day of the special convention meeting she has called began with an Order of Worship for the Evening With Prayers for Healing. She read the Litany for Healing.
[The Living Church] 31 Mar 2008--Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori made it clear Friday night that she will direct The Episcopal Church to move ahead to reconstitute the Diocese of San Joaquin and to establish control over church property swiftly. In addition, she said, she intends to begin the process of revising the denomination’s canons to allow it to deal more expeditiously with breakaway bishops.
“I expect to see revisions to the canons to deal with situations like the one that you have been living with in San Joaquin for several years,” she said.
The Presiding Bishop spoke at a question-and-answer session at St. Anne’s Church, Stockton, Calif., on March 28 after taking part in a service. The first day of the special convention meeting she has called began with an Order of Worship for the Evening With Prayers for Healing. She read the Litany for Healing.
South Carolina Asks Presiding Bishop to Postpone San Joaquin Special Convention
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/28/south-carolina-asks-presiding-bishop-to-postpone-san-joaquin-special-convention
[The Living Church] 31 Mar 2008--Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina and the diocesan standing committee have made public a letter sent March 27 to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in which she was asked not to proceed with a “special convention” meeting she announced and personally will convene on March 29 at St. John the Baptist Church in Lodi, Calif.
The meeting agenda includes adoption of the 2003 version of the San Joaquin Constitution and Canons certification of delegates and ratification of Bishop Jefferts Schori’s nomination of retired Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb to be provisional bishop for the newly reconstituted diocese. The diocese seeks a second “canonically correct vote” by the House of Bishops on the depositions of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox.
“Additionally, for the good of our Church, we ask you not to proceed with the planned election of a replacement for Bishop Schofield until the matter of his deposition can be legally and canonically resolved,” the letter added.
[The Living Church] 31 Mar 2008--Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina and the diocesan standing committee have made public a letter sent March 27 to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in which she was asked not to proceed with a “special convention” meeting she announced and personally will convene on March 29 at St. John the Baptist Church in Lodi, Calif.
The meeting agenda includes adoption of the 2003 version of the San Joaquin Constitution and Canons certification of delegates and ratification of Bishop Jefferts Schori’s nomination of retired Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb to be provisional bishop for the newly reconstituted diocese. The diocese seeks a second “canonically correct vote” by the House of Bishops on the depositions of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox.
“Additionally, for the good of our Church, we ask you not to proceed with the planned election of a replacement for Bishop Schofield until the matter of his deposition can be legally and canonically resolved,” the letter added.
Friday, March 28, 2008
A Commenter Over At T19 Postulates the Reasons for 815s Behavior in San Joaquin
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/11262/
[Stand Firm] 28 Mar 2008--I think it is pretty simple. KJS needs there to be a friendly, co-operative bishop claiming to be the sanctioned Bishop of San Joaquin for the purposes of a future lawsuit. KJS believes that she would not be able to secure a friendly, co-operative bishop if she acted according to the canons of TEC. The only way she could ensure a puppet bishop is if she acted as she did, and basically started up a new diocese from scratch based on a couple of parishes and several more ragtag collections of disgruntled parishioners from parishes that have remained with the Diocese of San Joaquin (SC).
The problem I see with what KJS has done (problem for her, I actually think that she has so botched it up that it will end up working in Bishop Schofield’s favor no matter what the California Supreme Court decides) is that she so has so blatantly abused the canonical process that her puppet bishop Lamb will have no legal standing. Organizations must follow their own internal rules, and KJS most certainly has not done so. Ergo, neither Lamb nor 815 will have claim to the properties.
[Stand Firm] 28 Mar 2008--I think it is pretty simple. KJS needs there to be a friendly, co-operative bishop claiming to be the sanctioned Bishop of San Joaquin for the purposes of a future lawsuit. KJS believes that she would not be able to secure a friendly, co-operative bishop if she acted according to the canons of TEC. The only way she could ensure a puppet bishop is if she acted as she did, and basically started up a new diocese from scratch based on a couple of parishes and several more ragtag collections of disgruntled parishioners from parishes that have remained with the Diocese of San Joaquin (SC).
The problem I see with what KJS has done (problem for her, I actually think that she has so botched it up that it will end up working in Bishop Schofield’s favor no matter what the California Supreme Court decides) is that she so has so blatantly abused the canonical process that her puppet bishop Lamb will have no legal standing. Organizations must follow their own internal rules, and KJS most certainly has not done so. Ergo, neither Lamb nor 815 will have claim to the properties.
Call for review after trial ‘flouted Church rules’
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/11284/
[Stand Firm] 28 Mar 2008--US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori failed to follow the procedural rules governing the trial of Bishop William Cox for “abandonment of the Communion” of the Episcopal Church an investigation by The Church of England Newspaper has found.
In a March 12 press conference, Bishop Schori stated she had not followed rules governing the requirement that the 88-year old retired bishop be granted a speedy trial, that he be informed of the charges against him in a timely fashion, and that the consent of the church’s senior bishops be solicited by the Presiding Bishop to suspend him from office pending trial. A subsequent investigation by CEN in conjunction with The Living Church magazine revealed an insufficient number of votes to convict were cast also.
The Bishop of Central Florida has called for a review of the proceedings, and the president of the church’s appellate court of review for the trial of bishops is understood to have agreed to look into the proceedings.
[Stand Firm] 28 Mar 2008--US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori failed to follow the procedural rules governing the trial of Bishop William Cox for “abandonment of the Communion” of the Episcopal Church an investigation by The Church of England Newspaper has found.
In a March 12 press conference, Bishop Schori stated she had not followed rules governing the requirement that the 88-year old retired bishop be granted a speedy trial, that he be informed of the charges against him in a timely fashion, and that the consent of the church’s senior bishops be solicited by the Presiding Bishop to suspend him from office pending trial. A subsequent investigation by CEN in conjunction with The Living Church magazine revealed an insufficient number of votes to convict were cast also.
The Bishop of Central Florida has called for a review of the proceedings, and the president of the church’s appellate court of review for the trial of bishops is understood to have agreed to look into the proceedings.
Church to vote on ordination of female bishops
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/28/church-to-vote-on-ordination-of-female-bishops/
[Anglican Mainstream] 28 Mar 2008--A vote on the ordination of female bishops in Wales will take place next week.
The move was proposed by the six diocesan bishops of the Church in Wales, and the 140 members of the church’s Governing Body will now decide whether or not to pass the Bill.
If the Bill is passed, it will come into effect immediately, making England the only part of the UK whose Anglican Church does not allow women priests to be ordained as bishops.
[Anglican Mainstream] 28 Mar 2008--A vote on the ordination of female bishops in Wales will take place next week.
The move was proposed by the six diocesan bishops of the Church in Wales, and the 140 members of the church’s Governing Body will now decide whether or not to pass the Bill.
If the Bill is passed, it will come into effect immediately, making England the only part of the UK whose Anglican Church does not allow women priests to be ordained as bishops.
Christianity's new face emerges
http://www.kentucky.com/211/story/359347.html
[Herald-Leader] 28 Mar 2008--"The new face of Christianity will be the black woman," a renowned theologian told a Lexington audience Thursday.
Kwok Pui Lan, the William F. Cole Professor of Christian Theology and Spirituality at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., explained that in mid-2007, Europe laid claim to the greatest number of Christians in the world: 532 million, followed by Latin America at 525 million and Africa at 417 million. But by 2025, Africa will climb to the top spot with 634.6 million Christians, with Latin America a close second at 634.1 million and Europe dropping to third at 521 million.
"The challenge," she said, "is to reimagine Christianity in the 21st century."
[Herald-Leader] 28 Mar 2008--"The new face of Christianity will be the black woman," a renowned theologian told a Lexington audience Thursday.
Kwok Pui Lan, the William F. Cole Professor of Christian Theology and Spirituality at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., explained that in mid-2007, Europe laid claim to the greatest number of Christians in the world: 532 million, followed by Latin America at 525 million and Africa at 417 million. But by 2025, Africa will climb to the top spot with 634.6 million Christians, with Latin America a close second at 634.1 million and Europe dropping to third at 521 million.
"The challenge," she said, "is to reimagine Christianity in the 21st century."
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Retired Quincy Bishop Faces Church Trial
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/26/retired-quincy-bishop-faces-church-trial
[The Living Church] 27 May 2008--A canonical case against the Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney, retired Bishop of Quincy, will be heard by Court for the Trial of a Bishop. It will be the first such case since the canons were amended by General Convention in 2006 to include members of the clergy and laity among the judges in a disciplinary case against a member of the episcopacy.
Bishop MacBurney has been served with a presentment, an ecclesiastical indictment. It charges him with violating Article II, Section 3 of The Episcopal Church Constitution and Title III, Canon 12, Section 3 which states: “No Bishop shall perform episcopal acts or officiate by preaching, ministering the sacraments, or holding any public service in a diocese other than that in which the Bishop is canonically resident, without permission or a license to perform occasional public services from the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in which the bishop desires to officiate or perform episcopal acts.”
[The Living Church] 27 May 2008--A canonical case against the Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney, retired Bishop of Quincy, will be heard by Court for the Trial of a Bishop. It will be the first such case since the canons were amended by General Convention in 2006 to include members of the clergy and laity among the judges in a disciplinary case against a member of the episcopacy.
Bishop MacBurney has been served with a presentment, an ecclesiastical indictment. It charges him with violating Article II, Section 3 of The Episcopal Church Constitution and Title III, Canon 12, Section 3 which states: “No Bishop shall perform episcopal acts or officiate by preaching, ministering the sacraments, or holding any public service in a diocese other than that in which the Bishop is canonically resident, without permission or a license to perform occasional public services from the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in which the bishop desires to officiate or perform episcopal acts.”
Why the Global Anglican Future Conference is Necessary
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7980
[Virtue Online] 27 Mar 2008--The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion Office, Middle East bishops, Episcopal Church liberal bishops, Church of England liberals and some 25 Church of England evangelical bishops wish that the June meeting of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in the Middle East would either evaporate, or, at a minimum, be little more than a prelude to the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury.
That is not going to happen given the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion.
With each passing day, it is becoming more apparent that GAFCON is not only necessary, but is growing in importance and strength.
[Virtue Online] 27 Mar 2008--The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion Office, Middle East bishops, Episcopal Church liberal bishops, Church of England liberals and some 25 Church of England evangelical bishops wish that the June meeting of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in the Middle East would either evaporate, or, at a minimum, be little more than a prelude to the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury.
That is not going to happen given the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion.
With each passing day, it is becoming more apparent that GAFCON is not only necessary, but is growing in importance and strength.
British Act of Settlement to be reviewed
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/27/british-act-of-settlement-to-be-reviewed/
[Anglican Mainstream] 27 Mar 2008--The government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown is ready to review the terms of the Act of Settlement and end the ban on Roman Catholics ascending the throne.
While a repeal of the 1701 Act’s ban on a Catholic monarch was not part of the white paper on constitutional reform, in response to a question Justice Minister Jack Straw said the government was ready to examine this “antiquated” law.
Passed by Parliament in 1701 to govern the succession of the monarch, the Act required the sovereign to “join in communion with the Church of England” and settled the throne on the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover — a granddaughter of Charles I, and to exclude the Roman Catholic Stuarts from the throne.
[Anglican Mainstream] 27 Mar 2008--The government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown is ready to review the terms of the Act of Settlement and end the ban on Roman Catholics ascending the throne.
While a repeal of the 1701 Act’s ban on a Catholic monarch was not part of the white paper on constitutional reform, in response to a question Justice Minister Jack Straw said the government was ready to examine this “antiquated” law.
Passed by Parliament in 1701 to govern the succession of the monarch, the Act required the sovereign to “join in communion with the Church of England” and settled the throne on the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover — a granddaughter of Charles I, and to exclude the Roman Catholic Stuarts from the throne.
Why Hold a Conservative Anglican Conference?
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/26/why-hold-a-conservative-anglican-conference/
[Anglican Mainstream] 27 Mar 2008--Orthodox Anglican primates from both the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings of the Anglican Communion who lead 30 million of the world’s 55 million active Anglicans have announced an important meeting to be held June 22-29. Conservative archbishops, bishops, invited clergy and lay leaders, along with their spouses, will gather for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), a pilgrimage to the Holy Land that will focus on worship, prayer, discussions and Bible study. They are travelling to the places of Christ’s ministry, where the gift of the Holy Spirit was first poured out, in order to strengthen them for what they believe will be difficult days ahead.
The conference leadership, theological resource group, and those bishops who are serving in majority Islamic settings will meet in Jordan June 18-22 for an important consultation prior to the pilgrimage. All members of the Common Cause college of bishops from the U.S. and Canada have been invited to GAFCON. The vision, according to the Archbishop of Kenya, the Most Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi, is to inform and inspire the invited leaders “to seek transformation in our own lives and help impact communities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
[Anglican Mainstream] 27 Mar 2008--Orthodox Anglican primates from both the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings of the Anglican Communion who lead 30 million of the world’s 55 million active Anglicans have announced an important meeting to be held June 22-29. Conservative archbishops, bishops, invited clergy and lay leaders, along with their spouses, will gather for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), a pilgrimage to the Holy Land that will focus on worship, prayer, discussions and Bible study. They are travelling to the places of Christ’s ministry, where the gift of the Holy Spirit was first poured out, in order to strengthen them for what they believe will be difficult days ahead.
The conference leadership, theological resource group, and those bishops who are serving in majority Islamic settings will meet in Jordan June 18-22 for an important consultation prior to the pilgrimage. All members of the Common Cause college of bishops from the U.S. and Canada have been invited to GAFCON. The vision, according to the Archbishop of Kenya, the Most Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi, is to inform and inspire the invited leaders “to seek transformation in our own lives and help impact communities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Changing Attitude in Ireland
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/26/changing-attitude-in-ireland/
[Anglican Mainstream] 27 Mar 2008--The Revd Colin Coward of Changing Attitude argues (Gazette, 29/02/08) that “to acknowledge that people engage in intimacy in nonapproved circumstances isn’t to undermine the ideal of fidelity in marriage”. Indeed not. But Changing Attitude not only acknowledges but encourages such behaviour. A publication entitled Sexual Ethics on its website - www.changingattitude.org. uk - suggests that....
[Anglican Mainstream] 27 Mar 2008--The Revd Colin Coward of Changing Attitude argues (Gazette, 29/02/08) that “to acknowledge that people engage in intimacy in nonapproved circumstances isn’t to undermine the ideal of fidelity in marriage”. Indeed not. But Changing Attitude not only acknowledges but encourages such behaviour. A publication entitled Sexual Ethics on its website - www.changingattitude.org. uk - suggests that....
Bishop Lawrence: 'Faithful Preaching' Key to Church Growth
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/26/bishop-lawrence-faithful-preaching-key-to-church-growth
[The Living Church] 27 Mar 2008--Shortly before he was consecrated Bishop of South Carolina on Jan. 26, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence predicted that the Diocese of South Carolina would “light a torch” for internal reform of The Episcopal Church during remarks at diocesan convention.
A few days before the House of Bishops’ spring retreat March 7-12 in Texas, Bishop Lawrence spoke with a reporter about reform and maintaining the enviable growth record begun under the 16-year tenure of his predecessor, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr. Bishop Salmon accompanied Bishop Lawrence to the first House of Bishops’ meeting since his consecration.
Between 1996 and 2006, average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of South Carolina increased by 22 percent and the number of baptized members increased by 20 percent. The diocese also reported gains in attendance and members during the past five years. Only the Diocese of Tennessee grew faster during that time.
While admittedly still new to the diocese, Bishop Lawrence credited the enviable growth record to a tradition of raising up leaders from within. Bishop Lawrence compared the classical pastoral ministry training model of clergy education emphasized in South Carolina favorably to the “therapeutic/social activist ministry model” that he believe predominates elsewhere.
“One of the things that has gone wrong with The Episcopal Church during the past 40 years is its cultural amnesia,” Bishop Lawrence said. “Does the church of the past have anything to tell us about our situation today?” Sin and its ripple effects are no different today than they were in Jesus’ time, he concluded.Shortly before he was consecrated Bishop of South Carolina on Jan. 26, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence predicted that the Diocese of South Carolina would “light a torch” for internal reform of The Episcopal Church during remarks at diocesan convention.
A few days before the House of Bishops’ spring retreat March 7-12 in Texas, Bishop Lawrence spoke with a reporter about reform and maintaining the enviable growth record begun under the 16-year tenure of his predecessor, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr. Bishop Salmon accompanied Bishop Lawrence to the first House of Bishops’ meeting since his consecration.
Between 1996 and 2006, average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of South Carolina increased by 22 percent and the number of baptized members increased by 20 percent. The diocese also reported gains in attendance and members during the past five years. Only the Diocese of Tennessee grew faster during that time.
While admittedly still new to the diocese, Bishop Lawrence credited the enviable growth record to a tradition of raising up leaders from within. Bishop Lawrence compared the classical pastoral ministry training model of clergy education emphasized in South Carolina favorably to the “therapeutic/social activist ministry model” that he believe predominates elsewhere.
“One of the things that has gone wrong with The Episcopal Church during the past 40 years is its cultural amnesia,” Bishop Lawrence said. “Does the church of the past have anything to tell us about our situation today?” Sin and its ripple effects are no different today than they were in Jesus’ time, he concluded.
[The Living Church] 27 Mar 2008--Shortly before he was consecrated Bishop of South Carolina on Jan. 26, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence predicted that the Diocese of South Carolina would “light a torch” for internal reform of The Episcopal Church during remarks at diocesan convention.
A few days before the House of Bishops’ spring retreat March 7-12 in Texas, Bishop Lawrence spoke with a reporter about reform and maintaining the enviable growth record begun under the 16-year tenure of his predecessor, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr. Bishop Salmon accompanied Bishop Lawrence to the first House of Bishops’ meeting since his consecration.
Between 1996 and 2006, average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of South Carolina increased by 22 percent and the number of baptized members increased by 20 percent. The diocese also reported gains in attendance and members during the past five years. Only the Diocese of Tennessee grew faster during that time.
While admittedly still new to the diocese, Bishop Lawrence credited the enviable growth record to a tradition of raising up leaders from within. Bishop Lawrence compared the classical pastoral ministry training model of clergy education emphasized in South Carolina favorably to the “therapeutic/social activist ministry model” that he believe predominates elsewhere.
“One of the things that has gone wrong with The Episcopal Church during the past 40 years is its cultural amnesia,” Bishop Lawrence said. “Does the church of the past have anything to tell us about our situation today?” Sin and its ripple effects are no different today than they were in Jesus’ time, he concluded.Shortly before he was consecrated Bishop of South Carolina on Jan. 26, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence predicted that the Diocese of South Carolina would “light a torch” for internal reform of The Episcopal Church during remarks at diocesan convention.
A few days before the House of Bishops’ spring retreat March 7-12 in Texas, Bishop Lawrence spoke with a reporter about reform and maintaining the enviable growth record begun under the 16-year tenure of his predecessor, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr. Bishop Salmon accompanied Bishop Lawrence to the first House of Bishops’ meeting since his consecration.
Between 1996 and 2006, average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of South Carolina increased by 22 percent and the number of baptized members increased by 20 percent. The diocese also reported gains in attendance and members during the past five years. Only the Diocese of Tennessee grew faster during that time.
While admittedly still new to the diocese, Bishop Lawrence credited the enviable growth record to a tradition of raising up leaders from within. Bishop Lawrence compared the classical pastoral ministry training model of clergy education emphasized in South Carolina favorably to the “therapeutic/social activist ministry model” that he believe predominates elsewhere.
“One of the things that has gone wrong with The Episcopal Church during the past 40 years is its cultural amnesia,” Bishop Lawrence said. “Does the church of the past have anything to tell us about our situation today?” Sin and its ripple effects are no different today than they were in Jesus’ time, he concluded.
Has the Notion of Sin Disappeared?
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_print.php?id=1120
[Albert Mohler] 27 Mar 2008--Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today asked the question, "Is sin dead?" The headline of her article in the paper was: "Has the 'Notion of Sin' Been Lost?"
Early in the article, Grossman answers her own question -- "No, not by a long shot." Still, her report raises some important issues about just what many people -- and preachers -- believe about sin. She also points to a question that should trouble the Christian conscience: "How can Christians celebrate Jesus' atonement for their sins and the promise of eternal life in his resurrection if they don't recognize themselves as sinners?" That question demands an answer.
Some observations from the article are worthy of note. The report reveals a great divide over the question of sin.
[Albert Mohler] 27 Mar 2008--Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today asked the question, "Is sin dead?" The headline of her article in the paper was: "Has the 'Notion of Sin' Been Lost?"
Early in the article, Grossman answers her own question -- "No, not by a long shot." Still, her report raises some important issues about just what many people -- and preachers -- believe about sin. She also points to a question that should trouble the Christian conscience: "How can Christians celebrate Jesus' atonement for their sins and the promise of eternal life in his resurrection if they don't recognize themselves as sinners?" That question demands an answer.
Some observations from the article are worthy of note. The report reveals a great divide over the question of sin.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
The Very Rev. Philip Jensen: The Limits of Fellowship (must read)
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/11209/
[Stand Firm] 26 Mar 2008--This is a section from a very important paper entitled "The Limits of Fellowship" by the Very Rev. Philip Jensen of Sydney (earlier I mistakenly attributed this to his brother the Archbishop of Sydney). In it he lays out the case for separation from false teachers, a case I find wholly persuasive. Read it carefully. The whole paper is found here (PDF)
[Stand Firm] 26 Mar 2008--This is a section from a very important paper entitled "The Limits of Fellowship" by the Very Rev. Philip Jensen of Sydney (earlier I mistakenly attributed this to his brother the Archbishop of Sydney). In it he lays out the case for separation from false teachers, a case I find wholly persuasive. Read it carefully. The whole paper is found here (PDF)
Top Ten Reasons Why
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/11213/
[Stand Firm] 26 Mar 2008--Can you believe there is yet another article where Mr. Robinson discusses his confusion about why he is not just a "simple country bishop" instead of The Gay Bishop?
where Mr. Robinson discusses his confusion about why he is not just a " Bishop?
One of the things I think I've learned in the last five years is that, as much as I wanted to be known as the good bishop, and not the gay bishop, there's no escaping, Robinson said in an interview last week at the diocesan headquarters here. I would love just to be a simple country bishop, but that just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
[Stand Firm] 26 Mar 2008--Can you believe there is yet another article where Mr. Robinson discusses his confusion about why he is not just a "simple country bishop" instead of The Gay Bishop?
where Mr. Robinson discusses his confusion about why he is not just a " Bishop?
One of the things I think I've learned in the last five years is that, as much as I wanted to be known as the good bishop, and not the gay bishop, there's no escaping, Robinson said in an interview last week at the diocesan headquarters here. I would love just to be a simple country bishop, but that just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
Without Christianity, our society is doomed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/21/do2102.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_21032008
[Telegraph] 26 Mar 2008--Canon Michael Ainsworth, a priest and colleague of mine just a couple of miles from my rectory in the City of London, was recently attacked in his churchyard by three youths. Michael suffered two black eyes, cuts and bruises. He was taken into hospital and his wife Janina, also a priest, said: "It's obvious that the attack on Michael does contain a religious element." It certainly is obvious: his attackers shouted, "You f------ priest!" as they beat him up.
This is the second time that Michael's church has been attacked. After the Good Friday service last year, louts threw bricks through the windows. A parishioner, Susan Crocker, said: "It's not out of the blue - it's a recurrent problem."
[Telegraph] 26 Mar 2008--Canon Michael Ainsworth, a priest and colleague of mine just a couple of miles from my rectory in the City of London, was recently attacked in his churchyard by three youths. Michael suffered two black eyes, cuts and bruises. He was taken into hospital and his wife Janina, also a priest, said: "It's obvious that the attack on Michael does contain a religious element." It certainly is obvious: his attackers shouted, "You f------ priest!" as they beat him up.
This is the second time that Michael's church has been attacked. After the Good Friday service last year, louts threw bricks through the windows. A parishioner, Susan Crocker, said: "It's not out of the blue - it's a recurrent problem."
Muslims 'to outnumber traditional churchgoers'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/nmuslims125.xml
[Telegraph] 26 Mar 2008--The increasing influence of Islam on British culture is disclosed in research today that shows the number of Muslims worshipping at mosques in England and Wales will outstrip the numbers of Roman Catholics going to church in little more than a decade.
Projections to be published next month estimate that, if trends continue, the number of Catholic worshippers at Sunday Mass will fall to 679,000 by 2020.
[Telegraph] 26 Mar 2008--The increasing influence of Islam on British culture is disclosed in research today that shows the number of Muslims worshipping at mosques in England and Wales will outstrip the numbers of Roman Catholics going to church in little more than a decade.
Projections to be published next month estimate that, if trends continue, the number of Catholic worshippers at Sunday Mass will fall to 679,000 by 2020.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church Writes the TEC Bishops About Recent and Upcoming Events
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/11224/
[TitusOneNine] 26 Mar 2008--As discussed in our spring meeting, we will hold a special meeting of the House of Bishops 17– 19 September. We are exploring the possibilities of holding this meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, and will get back to you in the near future once the location is certain. The 16th is recommended as a travel day and the meeting will conclude at midday on the 19th. The main purpose of this meeting will be to reflect and deliberate together following the Lambeth Conference. I encourage you to be present for the entirety of the meeting as your voice and presence are needed and appreciated. Those bishops who will have been consecrated since our last spring meeting are encouraged to join us.
Concerning the issue of Bishop Duncan, all relevant materials have been posted on the College of Bishops website, including the Review Committee's certification and the two submissions the Committee reviewed. It does not include the exhibits to either submission, which are voluminous. If any of you wish to see them, you can contact David Beers or Mary Kostel. Regarding financial assistance for Lambeth, those who can assist are invited to send checks to my Discretionary Fund via Sharon Jones, and marked for Lambeth. Those in need are invited to contact our office for assistance. Companion diocese bishops are our second priority, and only after that will we send any excess to Lambeth itself.
[TitusOneNine] 26 Mar 2008--As discussed in our spring meeting, we will hold a special meeting of the House of Bishops 17– 19 September. We are exploring the possibilities of holding this meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, and will get back to you in the near future once the location is certain. The 16th is recommended as a travel day and the meeting will conclude at midday on the 19th. The main purpose of this meeting will be to reflect and deliberate together following the Lambeth Conference. I encourage you to be present for the entirety of the meeting as your voice and presence are needed and appreciated. Those bishops who will have been consecrated since our last spring meeting are encouraged to join us.
Concerning the issue of Bishop Duncan, all relevant materials have been posted on the College of Bishops website, including the Review Committee's certification and the two submissions the Committee reviewed. It does not include the exhibits to either submission, which are voluminous. If any of you wish to see them, you can contact David Beers or Mary Kostel. Regarding financial assistance for Lambeth, those who can assist are invited to send checks to my Discretionary Fund via Sharon Jones, and marked for Lambeth. Those in need are invited to contact our office for assistance. Companion diocese bishops are our second priority, and only after that will we send any excess to Lambeth itself.
Episcopal leader to head diocese reorganization
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/A_NEWS/803260323/-1/A_NEWS
[The Stockton Record] 26 Mar 2008--The national leader of the Episcopal Church will be in Lodi this weekend to lead a major reorganization of the embattled San Joaquin Diocese and to elect a new bishop.
The diocese, which had 47 member churches, voted in December to secede from the national church body over disagreement on issues such as biblical interpretation, women in leadership roles and whether the church should ordain openly gay clergy.
But 18 churches wanted to stay aligned with the national church
[The Stockton Record] 26 Mar 2008--The national leader of the Episcopal Church will be in Lodi this weekend to lead a major reorganization of the embattled San Joaquin Diocese and to elect a new bishop.
The diocese, which had 47 member churches, voted in December to secede from the national church body over disagreement on issues such as biblical interpretation, women in leadership roles and whether the church should ordain openly gay clergy.
But 18 churches wanted to stay aligned with the national church
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Ten churches vote to leave
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/issues/2008/134/apr/04/article/ten-churches-vote-to-leave/
[Anglican Journal] 25 Mar 2008--In February, 10 churches in five dioceses voted to leave the Anglican Church of Canada and affiliate with a South American Anglican church, in an ongoing dispute over Christian fundamentals, including Canada’s more-liberal stance on homosexuality.
The churches said they were seeking episcopal oversight from retired bishop Donald Harvey, who is moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, a conservative group. They now consider Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone their primate (national archbishop); his church includes most of southern South America.
[Anglican Journal] 25 Mar 2008--In February, 10 churches in five dioceses voted to leave the Anglican Church of Canada and affiliate with a South American Anglican church, in an ongoing dispute over Christian fundamentals, including Canada’s more-liberal stance on homosexuality.
The churches said they were seeking episcopal oversight from retired bishop Donald Harvey, who is moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, a conservative group. They now consider Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone their primate (national archbishop); his church includes most of southern South America.
The Episcopal Women’s Caucus recently announced plans to target at least 11 dioceses of The Episcopal Church for visits not at the invitation of the l
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/24/five-global-south-primates-consult-on-lambeth-attendance
[The Living Church] 25 Mar 2008--The five primates who comprise the Global South Primates Steering Committee have agreed to disagree over the wisdom of attending this summer’s Lambeth Conference, and asserted that the Global South has a “prophetic and priestly vocation” to transform and renew the Anglican Communion.
“Enabled by the Holy Sprint, we were able to focus in unity on the original spirit, vision and vocation of the Global South in the Anglican Communion which had developed and deepened since the fateful event of November 2003,” the primates wrote in a communiqué issued at the meeting’s conclusion. “Through our conversations together and clarifications made, we are led to understand and appreciate the principled reasons for participation” in the June Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and the July Lambeth Conference. “Even if there are difference perspectives on these, they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt our common vision, unity and trust within the Global South.”
[The Living Church] 25 Mar 2008--The five primates who comprise the Global South Primates Steering Committee have agreed to disagree over the wisdom of attending this summer’s Lambeth Conference, and asserted that the Global South has a “prophetic and priestly vocation” to transform and renew the Anglican Communion.
“Enabled by the Holy Sprint, we were able to focus in unity on the original spirit, vision and vocation of the Global South in the Anglican Communion which had developed and deepened since the fateful event of November 2003,” the primates wrote in a communiqué issued at the meeting’s conclusion. “Through our conversations together and clarifications made, we are led to understand and appreciate the principled reasons for participation” in the June Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and the July Lambeth Conference. “Even if there are difference perspectives on these, they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt our common vision, unity and trust within the Global South.”
Women's Caucus Plans Uninvited Visits to 11 Dioceses
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/20/womens-caucus-plans-uninvited-visits-to-11-dioceses
[The Living Church] 25 Mar 2008--The Episcopal Women’s Caucus recently announced plans to target at least 11 dioceses of The Episcopal Church for visits not at the invitation of the local bishop under its expanded Angel Project.
“New times create new opportunities,” wrote the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, EWC president and rector of St. Paul’s Church in Chatham, N.J., in an article on “listening” in the latest issue of the Ruach, the EWC newsletter. “The caucus board has conceived of a new incarnation of this project. Based on communication we have received, we have identified 11 dioceses that are decidedly hostile to the ministry of women, lay and ordained. There are, no doubt, many more.”
The dioceses to be targeted are: Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy (Illinois), the Rio Grande (New Mexico and the Texas Panhandle), San Joaquin (California), South Carolina, Southwest Florida and Springfield (Illinois). Diocesan officials and female clergy from at least three of the dioceses named were amazed to learn that their diocese was included on the list.
[The Living Church] 25 Mar 2008--The Episcopal Women’s Caucus recently announced plans to target at least 11 dioceses of The Episcopal Church for visits not at the invitation of the local bishop under its expanded Angel Project.
“New times create new opportunities,” wrote the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, EWC president and rector of St. Paul’s Church in Chatham, N.J., in an article on “listening” in the latest issue of the Ruach, the EWC newsletter. “The caucus board has conceived of a new incarnation of this project. Based on communication we have received, we have identified 11 dioceses that are decidedly hostile to the ministry of women, lay and ordained. There are, no doubt, many more.”
The dioceses to be targeted are: Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy (Illinois), the Rio Grande (New Mexico and the Texas Panhandle), San Joaquin (California), South Carolina, Southwest Florida and Springfield (Illinois). Diocesan officials and female clergy from at least three of the dioceses named were amazed to learn that their diocese was included on the list.
Network Bishops to Meet April 24
http://www.acn-us.org/archive/2008/03/network-bishops-meet-april-24.html
[Anglican Communion Network] 25 Mar 2008--Bishops of those Episcopal Church dioceses that have formally affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network will meet in Chicago on April 24. The purpose of the meeting is to allow Network bishops to speak frankly with each other about the future.
As the crisis in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has deepened, Network bishops and dioceses have been moving in several directions. Some Network dioceses have reaffiliated or are considering reaffiliating with other provinces of the Anglican Communion. Individual Network bishops have left The Episcopal Church to join other communions. Other bishops are attempting to be a voice for orthodoxy within The Episcopal Church
[Anglican Communion Network] 25 Mar 2008--Bishops of those Episcopal Church dioceses that have formally affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network will meet in Chicago on April 24. The purpose of the meeting is to allow Network bishops to speak frankly with each other about the future.
As the crisis in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has deepened, Network bishops and dioceses have been moving in several directions. Some Network dioceses have reaffiliated or are considering reaffiliating with other provinces of the Anglican Communion. Individual Network bishops have left The Episcopal Church to join other communions. Other bishops are attempting to be a voice for orthodoxy within The Episcopal Church
A Statement from Bishop Michael Smith
http://episcopal-nd.blogspot.com/2008/03/statement-from-bishop-michael-smith.html
[The Episcopal Diocese of North Dakota] 25 Mar 2008--In the past few days questions have been raised about policies and procedures for licensing a priest to officiate in the Episcopal Church and an article appeared in this morning’s Grand Forks Herald. These policies are governed by the Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church which state clearly that priests must be licensed to officiate by the bishop if they have not been ordained in the diocese where they are currently residing.
It is inappropriate to speak publicly about specific personnel matters. However, during these contentious times over the issue of sexual morality in the life of the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, I have chosen to follow the recommendations of the bipartisan, international “Windsor Report.” Therefore, I will not ordain or license any clergy member who is unable to promise faithfulness in marriage or to abstain from sexual relationships outside of marriage.
[The Episcopal Diocese of North Dakota] 25 Mar 2008--In the past few days questions have been raised about policies and procedures for licensing a priest to officiate in the Episcopal Church and an article appeared in this morning’s Grand Forks Herald. These policies are governed by the Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church which state clearly that priests must be licensed to officiate by the bishop if they have not been ordained in the diocese where they are currently residing.
It is inappropriate to speak publicly about specific personnel matters. However, during these contentious times over the issue of sexual morality in the life of the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, I have chosen to follow the recommendations of the bipartisan, international “Windsor Report.” Therefore, I will not ordain or license any clergy member who is unable to promise faithfulness in marriage or to abstain from sexual relationships outside of marriage.
Bishop readies for next round
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/25/bishop_readies_for_next_round/
[The Boston Globe] 25 Mar 2008--Five years after he was consecrated a bishop in a nearby hockey arena, wearing a bulletproof vest under his new golden vestments, Gene Robinson is bracing for another round of controversy.
In June, Robinson plans to enter into a civil union with his partner of 20 years, Mark Andrew. He says he will do everything he can to keep photographers away, out of deference to those who find his same-sex relationship offensive, but he acknowledges that the event is likely to attract negative attention nonetheless.
And then, in July, he will head to London, as the most prominent uninvited guest of the Lambeth Conference, the decennial gathering of the world's 800 Anglican bishops. Robinson was not invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury because he is a noncelibate gay man, a status that many Anglican leaders believe is prohibited by the Bible.
[The Boston Globe] 25 Mar 2008--Five years after he was consecrated a bishop in a nearby hockey arena, wearing a bulletproof vest under his new golden vestments, Gene Robinson is bracing for another round of controversy.
In June, Robinson plans to enter into a civil union with his partner of 20 years, Mark Andrew. He says he will do everything he can to keep photographers away, out of deference to those who find his same-sex relationship offensive, but he acknowledges that the event is likely to attract negative attention nonetheless.
And then, in July, he will head to London, as the most prominent uninvited guest of the Lambeth Conference, the decennial gathering of the world's 800 Anglican bishops. Robinson was not invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury because he is a noncelibate gay man, a status that many Anglican leaders believe is prohibited by the Bible.
San Joaquin Special Convention May Violate Canon Law
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/24/san-joaquin-special-convention-may-violate-canon-law
[The Living Church] 25 Mar 2008--The Rev. James Snell, rector of St. Columba Church, Frenso, Calif., and president of the standing committee in the Diocese of San Joaquin, said he is concerned that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb, retired Bishop of Northern California, may be violating canon law and may be liable for presentment if they make good on plans to convene a special convention scheduled to be held at St. John-the-Baptist Church in Lodi on March 29.
“It’s one thing for her not to ‘recognize’ us,” Fr. Snell said. “Acting contrary to the canons of this diocese and of The Episcopal Church is another matter. The Presiding Bishop is not the ecclesiastical authority of this diocese and the canons of this diocese and the national church do not grant her the authority to call a diocesan convention or nominate someone for election as bishop.”
At the conclusion of the House of Bishops spring retreat on March 12, Bishop Jefferts Schori announced that she had nominated Bishop Lamb to stand for election as provisional Bishop of San Joaquin. She also said she would personally convene the March 29 special convention at which Bishop Lamb’s nomination was to be ratified. The agenda for the special convention also calls for undoing the constitutional changes approved during the annual convention last December. The constitutional amendments were used at the convention in December as legal justification to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.
The new constitution and canons to be proposed for adoption during the special convention on March 29 will be based largely on the constitution and canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin as they existed prior to December 2007. Under Article 5, Section 4 of the San Joaquin constitution, “special meetings of convention may be called by the ecclesiastical authority at any time provided at least thirty (30) days notice be given.” A proposed resolution seeks to insulate Bishop Jefferts Schori and other participants from legal action by calling “for the waiver and/or ratification of any potential defects in notice or other irregularities of calling the special convention.”
Fr. Snell said the controversy surrounding the number of bishops voting to depose Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin raised unanswered questions about the legality of the deposition. If Bishop Schofield was not validly deposed, then he remains the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. If he has been deposed then under both national church and diocesan law, the standing committee becomes the ecclesiastical authority, not the Presiding Bishop.
[The Living Church] 25 Mar 2008--The Rev. James Snell, rector of St. Columba Church, Frenso, Calif., and president of the standing committee in the Diocese of San Joaquin, said he is concerned that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb, retired Bishop of Northern California, may be violating canon law and may be liable for presentment if they make good on plans to convene a special convention scheduled to be held at St. John-the-Baptist Church in Lodi on March 29.
“It’s one thing for her not to ‘recognize’ us,” Fr. Snell said. “Acting contrary to the canons of this diocese and of The Episcopal Church is another matter. The Presiding Bishop is not the ecclesiastical authority of this diocese and the canons of this diocese and the national church do not grant her the authority to call a diocesan convention or nominate someone for election as bishop.”
At the conclusion of the House of Bishops spring retreat on March 12, Bishop Jefferts Schori announced that she had nominated Bishop Lamb to stand for election as provisional Bishop of San Joaquin. She also said she would personally convene the March 29 special convention at which Bishop Lamb’s nomination was to be ratified. The agenda for the special convention also calls for undoing the constitutional changes approved during the annual convention last December. The constitutional amendments were used at the convention in December as legal justification to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.
The new constitution and canons to be proposed for adoption during the special convention on March 29 will be based largely on the constitution and canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin as they existed prior to December 2007. Under Article 5, Section 4 of the San Joaquin constitution, “special meetings of convention may be called by the ecclesiastical authority at any time provided at least thirty (30) days notice be given.” A proposed resolution seeks to insulate Bishop Jefferts Schori and other participants from legal action by calling “for the waiver and/or ratification of any potential defects in notice or other irregularities of calling the special convention.”
Fr. Snell said the controversy surrounding the number of bishops voting to depose Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin raised unanswered questions about the legality of the deposition. If Bishop Schofield was not validly deposed, then he remains the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. If he has been deposed then under both national church and diocesan law, the standing committee becomes the ecclesiastical authority, not the Presiding Bishop.
If Europe Adopts Shari'a, It Will Revert to Pre-Enlightenment Era
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7967
[Virtue Online] 25 Mar 2008--Libyan Liberal Muhammad Al-Houni on Statements by Archbishop of Canterbury: If Europe Adopts Shari'a, It Will Revert to Pre-Enlightenment Era
In a February 26, 2008 article in the Arab liberal e-journal Elaph, Libyan-European liberal thinker and entrepreneur Muhammad 'Abd Al-Muttalib Al-Houni wrote that the recent statements by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams on implementing shari'a law in Britain constituted dangerous encouragement to fundamentalists in their war against the Enlightenment. He added that such statements could have very grave repercussions for the struggle for freedom in Muslim countries as well.
The following are excerpts from Al-Houni's article....
[Virtue Online] 25 Mar 2008--Libyan Liberal Muhammad Al-Houni on Statements by Archbishop of Canterbury: If Europe Adopts Shari'a, It Will Revert to Pre-Enlightenment Era
In a February 26, 2008 article in the Arab liberal e-journal Elaph, Libyan-European liberal thinker and entrepreneur Muhammad 'Abd Al-Muttalib Al-Houni wrote that the recent statements by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams on implementing shari'a law in Britain constituted dangerous encouragement to fundamentalists in their war against the Enlightenment. He added that such statements could have very grave repercussions for the struggle for freedom in Muslim countries as well.
The following are excerpts from Al-Houni's article....
Monday, March 24, 2008
The latest from Prof. Rob Gagnon
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/22/the-latest-from-prof-rob-gagnon/
[Anglican Mainstream] 24 Mar 2008--Three Lectures Delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary, March 4-5, 2008 on CD or through online download
[Anglican Mainstream] 24 Mar 2008--Three Lectures Delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary, March 4-5, 2008 on CD or through online download
Global Anglicans: an attack on us all
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/23/global-anglicans-an-attack-on-us-all/
[Anglican Mainstream] 24 Mar 2008--A leading Anglican layman has written to the press about the news that Dr Jim Packer has been served with a ‘notice of presumption of Abandonment of the Exercise of Ministry’ by the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada.
Professor Glynn Harrison is Professor of Mental Health at the University of Bristol, Church Warden of Christ Church, Clifton Bristol, a member of General Synod, and of the Crown Nominations Commission. He wrote: "Even with the turmoil engulfing the Anglican Communion, many evangelicals have focused on getting on with the job.
[Anglican Mainstream] 24 Mar 2008--A leading Anglican layman has written to the press about the news that Dr Jim Packer has been served with a ‘notice of presumption of Abandonment of the Exercise of Ministry’ by the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada.
Professor Glynn Harrison is Professor of Mental Health at the University of Bristol, Church Warden of Christ Church, Clifton Bristol, a member of General Synod, and of the Crown Nominations Commission. He wrote: "Even with the turmoil engulfing the Anglican Communion, many evangelicals have focused on getting on with the job.
Archbishop Jensen's Easter Message
http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/mediareleases/archbishop_jensens_easter_message/
[your.sydneyanglicans.net] 24 Mar 2008--The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, in his Easter message, has described reconciliation as ‘a very Christian idea’ and a powerful force for good in the world.
Dr Jensen also referred to what he called the human heart’s longing for an existence beyond the grave, saying the resurrection of Jesus allows people to trust ‘the one person who can take you through the greatest calamity of life and bring you safe to the other side.’
It is Dr Jensen’s seventh Easter message as head of the largest Anglican Diocese in Australia.
[your.sydneyanglicans.net] 24 Mar 2008--The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, in his Easter message, has described reconciliation as ‘a very Christian idea’ and a powerful force for good in the world.
Dr Jensen also referred to what he called the human heart’s longing for an existence beyond the grave, saying the resurrection of Jesus allows people to trust ‘the one person who can take you through the greatest calamity of life and bring you safe to the other side.’
It is Dr Jensen’s seventh Easter message as head of the largest Anglican Diocese in Australia.
Lesbian priest says she wants license to minister in ND
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/03/21/lesbian_priest_says_she_wants_license_to_minister_in_nd/
[The Boston Globe] 24 Mar 2008--A lesbian priest says she wants to start a dialogue with church leaders after the Episcopal bishop of North Dakota refused her request for a license to minister in the state.
The Rev. Gayle Baldwin, 62, an associate professor of religion at the University of North Dakota, was ordained an Episcopal priest in 1980. She came out as a lesbian a decade ago in Wyoming, where she has a license to preach and administer the sacraments. She came to UND in 2000.
Baldwin went public this week with a letter Episcopal leaders explaining her request to be licensed in North Dakota.
The Episcopal Church' consecration in 2003 of the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, led to division in the church and several dozen conservative U.S. parishes have split from the national denomination.
"I have been clear from the beginning what my expectations are," said Bishop Michael Smith, head of the 3,000 Episcopalians in North Dakota. "That is fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those not called to marriage."
[The Boston Globe] 24 Mar 2008--A lesbian priest says she wants to start a dialogue with church leaders after the Episcopal bishop of North Dakota refused her request for a license to minister in the state.
The Rev. Gayle Baldwin, 62, an associate professor of religion at the University of North Dakota, was ordained an Episcopal priest in 1980. She came out as a lesbian a decade ago in Wyoming, where she has a license to preach and administer the sacraments. She came to UND in 2000.
Baldwin went public this week with a letter Episcopal leaders explaining her request to be licensed in North Dakota.
The Episcopal Church' consecration in 2003 of the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, led to division in the church and several dozen conservative U.S. parishes have split from the national denomination.
"I have been clear from the beginning what my expectations are," said Bishop Michael Smith, head of the 3,000 Episcopalians in North Dakota. "That is fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those not called to marriage."
Egyptian Anglican Bishop Learns Bitter Lesson from Windsor Process
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7961
[Virtue Online] 24 Mar 2008--A Middle East Anglican bishop and an Australian Archbishop believe that the Windsor Process and The Episcopal Church's sexual innovations have made them lose faith in the Anglican Communion resulting in the Sydney leader withdrawing himself and his bishops from attending the Lambeth Conference.
Egyptian Bishop Mouneer Anis got a rude awakening when he attended the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) in London recently and learned, to his amazement, that the communion is not in a state of crisis and that the covenant process could carry on till 2015 without resolution.
While Mouneer was extremely critical of the ecclesiastical politics going on within the inner sanctums of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr. Peter F. Jensen, took a more aggressive posture and ripped the Episcopal Church saying repentance has not happened in The Episcopal Church and he was withdrawing his bishops from attending the Lambeth Conference.
[Virtue Online] 24 Mar 2008--A Middle East Anglican bishop and an Australian Archbishop believe that the Windsor Process and The Episcopal Church's sexual innovations have made them lose faith in the Anglican Communion resulting in the Sydney leader withdrawing himself and his bishops from attending the Lambeth Conference.
Egyptian Bishop Mouneer Anis got a rude awakening when he attended the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) in London recently and learned, to his amazement, that the communion is not in a state of crisis and that the covenant process could carry on till 2015 without resolution.
While Mouneer was extremely critical of the ecclesiastical politics going on within the inner sanctums of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr. Peter F. Jensen, took a more aggressive posture and ripped the Episcopal Church saying repentance has not happened in The Episcopal Church and he was withdrawing his bishops from attending the Lambeth Conference.
Statement from the Global South Primates Steering Committee, London, Mar 13-15, 2008
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/statement_from_the_global_south_primates_steering_committee_london_mar_2008/
[Global South Anglican] 24 Mar 2008--Five Primates - Abp Peter Akinola, Abp Greg Venables, Abp Kolini, Abp Mouneer Anis and Abp John Chew - met together for some heart to heart conversations from 13th to 15th March in London. They released this statement.
[Global South Anglican] 24 Mar 2008--Five Primates - Abp Peter Akinola, Abp Greg Venables, Abp Kolini, Abp Mouneer Anis and Abp John Chew - met together for some heart to heart conversations from 13th to 15th March in London. They released this statement.
Is the Episcopal Church Dying?
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7951
[VirtueOnline] 24 Mar 2008--Ms. Stanley is out of touch with reality.
First of all, there are not 2.3 million Episcopalians, as the National Church likes to tell us. Most of those are names on the rolls that should have been removed years ago. Because rectors are loathe to take names off of the books, they stay on there. Some are even dead and buried. Many have moved onto other denominations because of the Episcopal Church's endorsement of pansexual behavior. Hundreds of thousands of folks have simply stopped coming.
The raw, ugly truth is that there are less than 800,000 practicing Episcopalians on any given Sunday. That number is declining at the rate of 1,000 a week. According to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, the Episcopal Church is the fastest dying mainline protestant denomination in America. It dropped 1.5% in attendance last year. That figure is projected to only increase and escalate in 2008.
The Episcopal Church has declined in absolute numbers. According to statistics presented by Kirk Hadaway, the Episcopal Church's director of research to the Executive Council, the church is losing 1,000 parishioners per week. Only one in three Episcopalians attends a parish church on a weekly basis. Membership in all 110 dioceses of the Episcopal Church totalled 2,320,506 in 2006, down 2.2%, or 51,502, from 2,372,008 in 2005. That's the equivalent of 1,000 Episcopalians walking away from the Episcopal Church each week. There is no indication it will turn around any time soon, if ever. Since 2007, the decline has only accelerated.
One entire diocese, - San Joaquin - taking about 90 percent of its members, has departed the Episcopal Church. Three more dioceses, - Ft. Worth, Quincy and Pittsburgh, will, in all likelihood, leave over the next year taking thousands more with them. In the past 10 years, over 10 of the largest Episcopal parishes in the country have fled to other jurisdictions, my rector tells me. What does that tell you?
The figures don't lie. The Episcopal Church is not growing, it is dying.
[VirtueOnline] 24 Mar 2008--Ms. Stanley is out of touch with reality.
First of all, there are not 2.3 million Episcopalians, as the National Church likes to tell us. Most of those are names on the rolls that should have been removed years ago. Because rectors are loathe to take names off of the books, they stay on there. Some are even dead and buried. Many have moved onto other denominations because of the Episcopal Church's endorsement of pansexual behavior. Hundreds of thousands of folks have simply stopped coming.
The raw, ugly truth is that there are less than 800,000 practicing Episcopalians on any given Sunday. That number is declining at the rate of 1,000 a week. According to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, the Episcopal Church is the fastest dying mainline protestant denomination in America. It dropped 1.5% in attendance last year. That figure is projected to only increase and escalate in 2008.
The Episcopal Church has declined in absolute numbers. According to statistics presented by Kirk Hadaway, the Episcopal Church's director of research to the Executive Council, the church is losing 1,000 parishioners per week. Only one in three Episcopalians attends a parish church on a weekly basis. Membership in all 110 dioceses of the Episcopal Church totalled 2,320,506 in 2006, down 2.2%, or 51,502, from 2,372,008 in 2005. That's the equivalent of 1,000 Episcopalians walking away from the Episcopal Church each week. There is no indication it will turn around any time soon, if ever. Since 2007, the decline has only accelerated.
One entire diocese, - San Joaquin - taking about 90 percent of its members, has departed the Episcopal Church. Three more dioceses, - Ft. Worth, Quincy and Pittsburgh, will, in all likelihood, leave over the next year taking thousands more with them. In the past 10 years, over 10 of the largest Episcopal parishes in the country have fled to other jurisdictions, my rector tells me. What does that tell you?
The figures don't lie. The Episcopal Church is not growing, it is dying.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
No Change on the Eucharist
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/no-change-on-the-eucharist-cen-31408-p-7/1264/
[George Conger] 20 Mar 2008--There should be no change to the definition of “bread and wine” in the rubrics of the Eucharist a task force created by the Anglican Consultative Council’s Inter-Anglican Liturgical Committee has recommended. However, the use of gluten-free bread or other food staples as local exceptions should not be discouraged the report entitled “Eucharistic Food and Drink” said.
Prepared by a committee led by the ACC’s liturgical officer, the Rev. Paul Gibson of Canada, the “Eucharistic Food and Drink” report surveyed the provinces of the Anglican Communion asking whether the “use of elements other than wheat bread and fermented grape wine in the celebration of the Holy Communion” was in use.
The rubrics of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer allow an ambiguity in the form the host may take stating it “shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten.”
Ten provinces reported that some substitution of wheat bread and fermented grape wine was in place, either in formal practice or unofficial custom.
In Western countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the US, the use of rice-cakes to accommodate the needs of those suffering from gluten allergies, and grape juice for children or alcoholics was unofficially allowed.
[George Conger] 20 Mar 2008--There should be no change to the definition of “bread and wine” in the rubrics of the Eucharist a task force created by the Anglican Consultative Council’s Inter-Anglican Liturgical Committee has recommended. However, the use of gluten-free bread or other food staples as local exceptions should not be discouraged the report entitled “Eucharistic Food and Drink” said.
Prepared by a committee led by the ACC’s liturgical officer, the Rev. Paul Gibson of Canada, the “Eucharistic Food and Drink” report surveyed the provinces of the Anglican Communion asking whether the “use of elements other than wheat bread and fermented grape wine in the celebration of the Holy Communion” was in use.
The rubrics of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer allow an ambiguity in the form the host may take stating it “shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten.”
Ten provinces reported that some substitution of wheat bread and fermented grape wine was in place, either in formal practice or unofficial custom.
In Western countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the US, the use of rice-cakes to accommodate the needs of those suffering from gluten allergies, and grape juice for children or alcoholics was unofficially allowed.
American Psychological Association: No Consensus on Cause of Homosexuality
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006881.cfm
[CitizenLink] 20 Mar 2008--Group gives credence to the view that both nature and nurture are involved.
The American Psychological Association (APA) may be shifting from its view that homosexuality is inborn. The group now says both nature and nurture are involved, and clients have a right to self-determination.
In a new brochure, the APA concedes that there is no scientific consensus on what causes same-sex attraction.
“They are starting to have the integrity of reporting accurately about the condition of homosexuality," said Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International. "We find this to be a very exciting move and hope that it indicates future movement toward recognizing that people can and do overcome homosexuality.”
Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said the brochure has an activist bent, but he sees a ray of hope.
“This doesn’t mean that we’ve completely succeeded in all the things that we’ve wanted to," he said, "but it’s a move in the direction that we’ve wanted them to move in, and I think that’s very positive news.”
[CitizenLink] 20 Mar 2008--Group gives credence to the view that both nature and nurture are involved.
The American Psychological Association (APA) may be shifting from its view that homosexuality is inborn. The group now says both nature and nurture are involved, and clients have a right to self-determination.
In a new brochure, the APA concedes that there is no scientific consensus on what causes same-sex attraction.
“They are starting to have the integrity of reporting accurately about the condition of homosexuality," said Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International. "We find this to be a very exciting move and hope that it indicates future movement toward recognizing that people can and do overcome homosexuality.”
Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said the brochure has an activist bent, but he sees a ray of hope.
“This doesn’t mean that we’ve completely succeeded in all the things that we’ve wanted to," he said, "but it’s a move in the direction that we’ve wanted them to move in, and I think that’s very positive news.”
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Could you prove you're a Christian?
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27655
[Baptist Press] 19 Mar 2008--A recent article in The New York Times discussed the difficulty facing some American-born Jews, now living in Israel, to prove the authenticity of their heritage. One young woman went with her fiancé to the Tel Aviv Rabbinate to register to marry. This governmental court asked her to prove she was Jewish.
If a court of law asked you to prove you were a Christian, how would you do it?
[Baptist Press] 19 Mar 2008--A recent article in The New York Times discussed the difficulty facing some American-born Jews, now living in Israel, to prove the authenticity of their heritage. One young woman went with her fiancé to the Tel Aviv Rabbinate to register to marry. This governmental court asked her to prove she was Jewish.
If a court of law asked you to prove you were a Christian, how would you do it?
Bearing the Silence of God
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/march/29.41.html
[Christianity Today] 19 Mar 2008--I must admit, I am no heavenly man! Unlike most other Muslim-background believers, there is nothing supernatural to tell about how I came in touch with Christians or decided to be one.
[Christianity Today] 19 Mar 2008--I must admit, I am no heavenly man! Unlike most other Muslim-background believers, there is nothing supernatural to tell about how I came in touch with Christians or decided to be one.
On the contrary, I went to an old Anglican church with some friends because of an article about it in a local Turkish newspaper, which accused it of luring young people to become Christians by offering them wine, 100 U.S. dollars every Sunday, and the possibility of marrying a young British woman.
I was 17 years old when I had to face my family and relatives about my decision to be a follower of Jesus. I remember vividly how fearful I was, and how isolated and alone I felt as I lay in the fetal position in a sleeping bag on a friend's floor.
I am still broke, sober, and single after all these years, and I still struggle with shame, loneliness, and fear.
Irish Anglicans to recognize pensions for civil partners
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57349
[Catholic World News] 19 Mar 2008--The Church of Ireland is to give full pension right to the civil partners of employees, including clergy. The Anglican body will offer civil partners the same pension rights as surviving spouses of deceased employees. Northern Ireland offers legal recognition for civil partnerships involving same-sex couples. The Republic of Ireland does not currently recognize same-sex unions, but the government has promised to advance legislation allowing for some form of civil union. Changing Attitude Ireland, a gay-rights group within the Church of Ireland, welcomed the decision on pensions, and said the move underlined the urgency for legislation in the Irish republic allowing recognition of same-sex unions.
[Catholic World News] 19 Mar 2008--The Church of Ireland is to give full pension right to the civil partners of employees, including clergy. The Anglican body will offer civil partners the same pension rights as surviving spouses of deceased employees. Northern Ireland offers legal recognition for civil partnerships involving same-sex couples. The Republic of Ireland does not currently recognize same-sex unions, but the government has promised to advance legislation allowing for some form of civil union. Changing Attitude Ireland, a gay-rights group within the Church of Ireland, welcomed the decision on pensions, and said the move underlined the urgency for legislation in the Irish republic allowing recognition of same-sex unions.
What Bishop James Mathes Really Means by "Reconciliation" (Bishop MacBurney Presentment)
http://sandiegoanglicans.com/cms/blogentry/davidturney/2008/03/13/368
[sandiagoanglicans.com] 19 Mar 2008--As this story involves my parish, more local perspective on this story will be forthcoming...
[sandiagoanglicans.com] 19 Mar 2008--As this story involves my parish, more local perspective on this story will be forthcoming...
It's well known that Bishop Mathes, Diocesan of The Episcopal Diocese of San Diego brought these charges against Bishop MacBurney (80 Yrs. old, retired, & currently dealing with a dying son of his).
For now see these threads:
The 'gnostic gospel' of Gafcon
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/03/the-gnostic-gos.html
[Articles of Faith] 19 Mar 2008-- Michael Poon's recent article on the Global South reveals a possible divergence between South East Asia and the African provinces. But it also contains this remarkable assertion: 'Gafcon holds before the Communion a new and unfamiliar utopia that is post-modern to its core. Webmasters and web bloggers render synodical processes irrelevant. They preside over web blogs in the virtual worlds of their own fabrication. Its power in shaping public opinion on ecclesiastical authorities simply cannot be ignored. A communion that is no longer dependent on patient face-to-face encounters and governed by geographical proximity: it is a Gnostic gospel that renders the Cross in vain.'
[Articles of Faith] 19 Mar 2008-- Michael Poon's recent article on the Global South reveals a possible divergence between South East Asia and the African provinces. But it also contains this remarkable assertion: 'Gafcon holds before the Communion a new and unfamiliar utopia that is post-modern to its core. Webmasters and web bloggers render synodical processes irrelevant. They preside over web blogs in the virtual worlds of their own fabrication. Its power in shaping public opinion on ecclesiastical authorities simply cannot be ignored. A communion that is no longer dependent on patient face-to-face encounters and governed by geographical proximity: it is a Gnostic gospel that renders the Cross in vain.'
Gafcon 'gnostic'? Incredible. As this blogger says, the crisis in Anglicanism appears to be deepening on a daily basis. It has got to the point where my newsdesk has little understanding of what is going on, and has even less interest. The layers of schism, counter-schism, suit and counter-suit seem unending. In that sense, perhaps, the sense of having many 'spheres' of knowledge is gnostic, as is the need to be an 'initiate' to get a handle on it.
Chris Sugden's response to Poon's essay was understandably sniffy.'Canon Dr Michael Poon appears not to know what the GAFCON Pilgrimage really is, and has exercised a creative imagination on this. His view therefore gives no basis for a reasonable comment,' he told me. Meanwhile, Chris has sent out letter appealing for funds to help bishops and their wives travel to Gafcon, as Thinking Anglicans reports.The gnostics wrote little down and passed on their 'gnosis' or knowledge by word of mouth. No doubt, in today's world, they would all indeed be bloggers. So Poon perhaps has a point. But in the overall scheme of things, it is a small point. Whatever their sins, I really think it a little unfair to level this ancient heresy at the modern-day 'orthodox'.
Unbiased Study shows Importance of Environment in Sexual Orientation Development?
http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/03/16/unbiased-study-shows-importance-of-environment-in-sexual-orientation-development/
[Peter Ould] 19 Mar 2008--Dr Whitehead has a precis of this new research that has incidentally shown what many of us have been batting on about for years.
[Peter Ould] 19 Mar 2008--Dr Whitehead has a precis of this new research that has incidentally shown what many of us have been batting on about for years.
Update - Please note the comment below by Warren Throckmorton who casts doubt on the usefulness of this study. I have adjusted the title accordingly!
Dean Hamer (whose name is particularly associated with “gay gene” studies) has an interview segment on the U-tube ex-ex-gay website in which he says that upbringing has nothing at all to do with the development of homosexuality. The reason he says that goes back basically to studies from 1981. But a recent paper from Taiwan, (Lung and Shu, 2007) shows for the first time in a modern sociological survey that in some places, in some cultures, the influence of mothers and fathers and upbringing can be extremely strong, in fact accounting for most of the influences. This also shows that cultural factors are important, because they cause the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors to shift. In this paper I review the intellectual history of this argument, to put the Taiwanese paper in context.
Bishop Iker's Sermon at the Chrism Mass
http://texanglican.blogspot.com/2008/03/bishop-ikers-sermon-at-chrism-mass.html
[Texanglican] 19 Mar 2008--Yesterday the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, bishop of Fort Worth, celebrated the Chrism Mass with his clergy at St. Vincent's Cathedral. Below is the sermon the bishop preached. It is a fine statement of the responsibilities of the ordained ministers of the Church, especially in these trying times.
[Texanglican] 19 Mar 2008--Yesterday the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, bishop of Fort Worth, celebrated the Chrism Mass with his clergy at St. Vincent's Cathedral. Below is the sermon the bishop preached. It is a fine statement of the responsibilities of the ordained ministers of the Church, especially in these trying times.
Anglican schism not 'catastrophic': theologian
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=384414
[National Post] 19 Mar 2008--Schism is not a "catastrophic" event and is preferable to placating those who do not treat gays as equal simply for the sake of unity, a Canadian Anglican theologian says.
[National Post] 19 Mar 2008--Schism is not a "catastrophic" event and is preferable to placating those who do not treat gays as equal simply for the sake of unity, a Canadian Anglican theologian says.
"There are moments when treating unity as kind of absolute virtue that's higher than anything else is not necessarily the right thing," Rev. Paul Gibson said in an interview, concerning an essay he wrote that was posted on the Anglican Church of Canada's Web site Tuesday.
He wrote the essay in relation to the present schism in the Anglican Church over same-sex blessings, and concluded that a unified church that treats gays unequally would be a greater evil than a divided church. Since the start of the year, eight Anglican parishes, out of a total of about 2,000 across the country, have formally left the national Church.
Doubts over deposition trial
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/19/doubts-over-deposition-trial/
[Anglican Mainstream] 19 Mar 2008--The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has deposed the Bishop of San Joaquin and the retired suffragan Bishop of Maryland for “abandonment of the Communion” of the Episcopal Church following a closed trial in Texas on March 12. However, a joint investigation by The Church of England Newspaper and The Living Church magazine has revealed procedural and legal inconsistencies that may render the vote a nullity.
[Anglican Mainstream] 19 Mar 2008--The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has deposed the Bishop of San Joaquin and the retired suffragan Bishop of Maryland for “abandonment of the Communion” of the Episcopal Church following a closed trial in Texas on March 12. However, a joint investigation by The Church of England Newspaper and The Living Church magazine has revealed procedural and legal inconsistencies that may render the vote a nullity.
The ecclesiastical trial of Bishop John-David Schofield was a necessary part of the Episcopal Church’s legal strategy to secure the property of the Diocese of San Joaquin, US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on March 12. However, the flawed trial has created a legal anomaly leaving Bishop Schofield in place as Episcopal bishop of San Joaquin, when neither he, nor Bishop Schori, want him to hold that post.
“The current public dispute over the canonical legality of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ recent vote to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox amounts at best to a severe embarrassment to the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House itself; at worst, it exposes a travesty of Christian justice and prudence,” the Anglican Communion Institute noted.
“The result of this dispute and the failures of good order leading up to it will inevitably be the further erosion of [the Episcopal Church’s] standing in the public’s eye and in the Communion’s councils,” it said.
Bishop speaks of 'Christian UK'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7300387.stm
[BBC News] 19 Mar 2008--An Anglican bishop who received threats after comments about Islamic extremism has spoken on the importance of the UK's Christian heritage.
[BBC News] 19 Mar 2008--An Anglican bishop who received threats after comments about Islamic extremism has spoken on the importance of the UK's Christian heritage.
The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, was threatened after claiming Islamic extremism made some places "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.
In an exclusive interview, he told BBC South East that Christianity "is the conscience of this nation".
Dr Nazir-Ali was born in Pakistan and has a Christian and Muslim background.
He said the Christian faith is part of the UK's history, but also "offers a critique of things done in this country".
"No one can read the history of this country and ignore the Christian faith," he added.
Lambeth: To Go or Not To Go II: Tips for Take-overs
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/03/19/lambeth-to-go-or-not-to-go-ii-tips-for-take-overs/
[Anglican Mainstream] 19 Mar 2008--There have been two significant responses elicited by recent developments within the Anglican Communion. I would like to analyse what has been said – and left unsaid – and where it’s all heading. The first response is that of the Statement by the Province of SE Asia. I begin, though, with the second, the Reflections of Bishop Mouneer Anis on the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) where he shared with the world his bleak perspective on the future of the Anglican Communion (AC). Given the present trajectory of the ‘progressive’ TEC (and of other Anglican spheres, as well), there is little to give hope to the conservatives within the AC. He knows it and now publicly acknowledges it. The Communion’s future is at stake. Though the good bishop does not indicate whether or not he is au fait with the literature related to psychological manipulation and social engineering, he has actually revealed in this commentary something of ‘how it is done’ by the professionals. And though we are speaking about progressives within the AC, these ‘tips-for-takeovers’ are useful across the board, regardless of the organizational entity, denomination or group.
[Anglican Mainstream] 19 Mar 2008--There have been two significant responses elicited by recent developments within the Anglican Communion. I would like to analyse what has been said – and left unsaid – and where it’s all heading. The first response is that of the Statement by the Province of SE Asia. I begin, though, with the second, the Reflections of Bishop Mouneer Anis on the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) where he shared with the world his bleak perspective on the future of the Anglican Communion (AC). Given the present trajectory of the ‘progressive’ TEC (and of other Anglican spheres, as well), there is little to give hope to the conservatives within the AC. He knows it and now publicly acknowledges it. The Communion’s future is at stake. Though the good bishop does not indicate whether or not he is au fait with the literature related to psychological manipulation and social engineering, he has actually revealed in this commentary something of ‘how it is done’ by the professionals. And though we are speaking about progressives within the AC, these ‘tips-for-takeovers’ are useful across the board, regardless of the organizational entity, denomination or group.
First, there are the elements of time and will-power. Time is on the side of the ‘progressives’ (Ps) who unremittingly chip away at the ‘establishment’ (whose members I will call Es) by wearing them down and wearing them out. Es may well feel strongly about the issue but not nearly as strongly as Ps, whose self-evident truth is non-negotiable. And it is irrelevant how often Es re-state core convictions or re-affirm essentials. Bishop Anis and the Province of SE Asia Statement gave only a partial history of the attempts to ‘call a halt’ – see below - but none of them have caused Ps to modify their behaviour (with the possible exception of slowing the rate) or change the ultimate terminus, have they? Ps know better! They know that, at the end of the day, they care far more than Es about ‘their issue’. It cuts to the quick – it is what they are about - and that will be the determining factor for the outcome. So the future is theirs, if not the present. In the meanwhile, simply getting a place ‘at the table’ with the rest is the goal. And they have reached it now.
There is also the element of presence. Notice how inhibitory the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefforts-Schori’s,(Katie’s) sitting there in the midst of the group was – and did she not half know it! She was playing both the Listening and the Gender Cards. In relation to the former, she was saying in effect, ‘I represent Anglican GLBTs, historically victimized and oppressed by an uncaring church – and I hope you feel really guilty about that past – you ought to!’ In relation to the latter, she was insinuating, ‘As a woman I represent another class of historically victimized people and thus I ought to be treated with greater leniency by you than if I were a man’. These chaps are from the old school, after all; they grew up in the days when ‘good’ men respected and honoured women. And they got the message. Given the above, as well as the subtle but powerful rules of The Club – Children, be nice to each other now! – Katie was home free. She knew how effective simply her presence would be in muzzling the potential opposition, and it paid off, as Bishop Anis noted.
Statement by the Synod of The Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia (2008)
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/statement_by_the_synod_of_the_province_of_the_anglican_church_in_south_east/
[Global South Anglican] 19 Mar 2008--1. The SYNOD of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia, meeting in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 27 - 28 February 2008,
[Global South Anglican] 19 Mar 2008--1. The SYNOD of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia, meeting in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 27 - 28 February 2008,
2. RECALLED that the Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality expresses the mind of the Communion, as further endorsed in the Statement of the Primates’ Meeting (Lambeth, 15-16 October 2003) “as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues.” The Diocese of New Westminster, Canada (DNWC) authorized the Public Rite of Blessing for those in same sex relationship (May 2003) and the 74th General Convention of ECUSA confirmed the election of a priest in active same-sex relationship to the episcopate (May 2003), clearly against the letter and spirit of the abovesaid Resolution. Of particular grief was TEC’s decision to proceed with the consecration of Gene Robinson (Nov 2003) notwithstanding the unanimous agreement and plea of the Primates (Oct 2003) that if they go ahead with the decision, “the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy” and that it will “tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level.”
3. NOTED TEC’s and DNWC’s further failure to adequately adhere or respond to the call for repentance by The Windsor Report (2004), the Communique of the Primates’ Meeting at Dromantine (Feb 2005) and in particular the various requirements in the most recent Communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting at Dar es Salam, Tanzania (Feb 2007) i.e. that TEC to unequivocally comply with moratoria on the consecration of persons in same-sex unions and on authorising any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions, to cease all legal action against those who feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or Presiding Bishop, and that TEC make provision for a Primatial Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme for pastoral care;
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
An Anglican Prayer Book (2008): The Order for the Holy Communion - Part III
In this fifth article of my series on An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) I examine the Penitential Preparation and the Ministry of the Sacrament in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008). I have included the Penitential Preparation with the Ministry of the Sacrament because it is historically connected with that Ministry.
The Penitential Preparation is derived from the Order of Communion of 1548, which was inserted in the Ministry of the Sacrament of the First Prayer Book of 1549 after "Christ our Pascall lambe is offred up for us...". In the Second Prayer Book of 1552 the Order of Communion was broken up. The First Exhortation, the Second Exhortation ("Ye that do truly repent..."), the General Confession, the Absolution, and the Comfortable Words were placed before the Prayer of Consecration; the Prayer of Humble Access was placed after the Sanctus; and the Words of Distribution after the Prayer of Consecration. In An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) the Penitential Preparation –the First Exhortation, the Second Exhortation ("Ye that do truly repent..."), the General Confession, the Absolution, and the Comfortable Words-are placed before the Prayer of Consecration as in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayers Books, the 1789, 1892, and 1928 American Prayer Books, and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.
The Penitential Preparation:
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the first two forms of the First Exhortation from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and substitute for the third form a revision of that form. The version of the third form of the First Exhortation in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is not a word for word translation of the 1662 form into modern idiom. Instead of addressing the congregation as "Dearly beloved in the Lord..." the revised form addressed them as "Fellow baptized Christians...". The revision also does away with the Scriptural language and allusions of the original.
The Exhortation "Ye that do truly repent..." has been altered slightly. It begins "If you truly repent..." and the phrase "take this holy Sacrament to strengthen and comfort you" has been substituted for "...and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort." The words "meekly kneeling upon your knees" have been dropped. The omission of these words appears to recognize that those using An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) may, under certain circumstances, not be able to kneel for the General Confession. The rubrics, however, after permitting a pause for self-examination direct all to say the General Confession, kneeling.
An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) would have benefited from a General Directions for Public Worship section with a note pointing to the attention of users of the book that where a certain posture is particularly appropriate, it is indicated but these directions are suggestions only. Such a note would have helped to give the book the kind of flexibility needed for the wide variety of circumstances in which Anglican Mission congregations are worshiping.
The 1662 Order for the Lord's Supper:
Before we examine the Ministry of the Sacrament in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), let briefly review the history of the development of the Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer itself. I have modernized the spelling of texts from the 1549, 1552, and 1559 Prayer Books where I quote them.
The Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Prayer Book is the one that conforms to the standards for faith and worship set forth in the Proposed Constitution of the Anglican Mission in America-the Holy Scriptures, the Thirty Nine Articles of 1562 and The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. It is also the one that conforms to the standards for faith and worship that the Anglican Mission has agreed to accept in ratifying the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership:
1) We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.
2) We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and thus to be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
4) We confess as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in the three Catholic Creeds: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
5) Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils, and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7) We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.
Indeed the Proposed AMiA Constitution and the CCP Theological Statement establish the Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as normative for Anglican Mission churches.
The Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Prayer Book is substantially that of the Second Prayer Book of 1552 with some modifications. In the 1552 Prayer Book all references to the Offertory were omitted. The Penitential Preparation-the First Exhortation, the Second Exhortation ("Ye that do truly repent...") the General Confession, the Absolution, and the Comfortable Words, were moved to a position before the Canon, or Prayer of Consecration; "the Canon was so rearranged as to exclude the remotest possibility of its being interpreted as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." [1] The versicle and response "The Lord be with thee" "And with thy spirit," with its association with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, was dropped from the Sursum Corda. The Intercession was moved to a position where it had no connection with the Consecration, and the Prayer for the Dead was omitted. The Invocation of the Holy Spirit, or epiclesis, with its implication of a mutation of the elements and its affirmation of a corporal presence in the consecrated bread and wine was replaced with a petition that those receiving the bread and wine, in accordance with Christ's institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, might be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood. The Prayer for Humble Access was moved from its 1549 position before the distribution of the consecrated elements to a position immediately after the Sanctus where it could not be referring to the consecrated bread and wine. The phrase "in these holy mysteries" in the Prayer of Humble Access was omitted. The Benedictus with its implication of a corporal presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine was stricken out after the Sanctus. The 1552 Prayer Book also did away with the anamnesis of 1549. The Lord's Prayer was placed after the Communion. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and the oblation of "ourselves, our souls, and bodies" were reworded and placed after the Communion where they could not be associated in the minds of the people with the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass (or any other doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice) and where they served as " a response to the grace made known in the sacrament but no part of the sacramental action itself." [2]
At the distribution of the Communion the rubrics refer to the consecrated elements as "the bread" and "the cup." The rubrics direct the minister to first receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and then to deliver it other ministers, if any were present so that they might help the chief minister, and "after to the people in their hands kneeling." When he delivers the bread, he is directed to say these words: "Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." The minister who delivers the cup is directed to say these words: Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful." The Agnus Dei was omitted from the Communion because it implied a corporal presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine. It also had strong associations with the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the adoration of the consecrated Host.
The rubrics at the end of the service state that if any of the bread and wine remained, "the Curate shall have it to his own use."
At the time of its printing the Declaration on Kneeling, the so-called "Black Rubric," was added to the 1552 Prayer Book. It offers an explanation for the continuance of the Medieval custom of kneeling to receive Communion in the 1552 Prayer Book, a practice also associated with the adoration of the consecrated Host, the highpoint of the Medieval Mass for the laity, and the offering of fealty to one's liege lord in Medieval feudal society. It goes on to state:
"Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the Sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our savior Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ's natural body, to be in more places than one, at one time."
The Order for the Lord's Supper of the Prayer Book of 1559, the Prayer Book of the Elizabethan Settlement, "the" Prayer Book of the Church of England for almost 100 years, and the first Prayer Book used in North America, is that of the Second Prayer Book of 1552 but with two specific important changes. The 1559 Prayer Book amalgamated the Words of Distribution of the 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books. It dropped the Declaration on Kneeling.
The Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is a modest revision of that in the 1559 Prayer Book. The word "Offertory" is used in the rubrics. After the ingathering and presentation of the "the Alms for the Poor and the other devotions of the people" the priest is directed to "place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine, as he shall think sufficient, at that juncture in the service. The 1662 Prayer Book places an "Amen" at the conclusion of the Prayer of Consecration, restores the Manual Acts and the Fraction to the Consecration Prayer, retains the 1559 Words of Distribution, and restores the Declaration on Kneeling in a modified form. The 1662 Prayer Book also adds a form for the consecration of additional bread and wine. The rubrics direct that "when all have communicated, the Minister shall return to the Lord's Table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth of the consecrated Elements, covering the same with a fair white linen cloth." They further direct that if any remain of the consecrated bread and wine, "it shall not be carried out of the church, but the priest and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the Blessing eat and drink the same."
The Ministry of the Sacrament:
The Sursum Corda, the Prefaces, and the Sanctus: The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) add the versicle and response "The Lord be with you" "And with your spirit" to the Sursum Corda. This addition comes from the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book. As previously noted, this versicle and response were omitted from the 1552 Prayer Book due to its association with the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
The opening words of the Prayer of Consecration have been changed from those used in Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, the predecessor of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), issued in 2006 for restricted trial use in Anglican Mission churches for limited period of time. While the original wording worked well enough, the new wording will work even better. It flows smoothly off the tongue and focuses attention immediately upon God.
The first proper preface is adapted from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer the second from the 1928 American Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, the third from the 1928 American book and the 1926 Canadian book, the fourth from the 1962 Canadian, the fifth from the 1662 Prayer Book, the sixth from the 1662 book, the seventh from the 1962 Canadian, the eighth from the 1962 Canadian, the ninth from the 1928 American and 1962 Canadian, and the tenth, if my memory serves me, from the 1928 American. I did not find the last proper preface in the electronic editions of the 1928 American Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book that I consulted. I did find a similar preface in a number of other Anglican service books, including An Australian Prayer Book (1978). The quality of these proper prefaces varies. Some are better than others. Repeated use will identify the weakest.
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) have done away with the awkward wording of the Ordinary Preface and the Sanctus that helped to mar the Prayer of Consecration in Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. They have replaced it with wording much closer to that of the Ordinary Preface and the Sanctus in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This change is a decided improvement for which they are to be commended.
As well as adding the versicle and response "The Lord be with you" "And with your spirit," the compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) add a rubric that permit the recitation or singing of the Benedictus after the Sanctus or before the Communion. This addition also come from the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book. Since the Sursum Corda, Prefaces, Sanctus, and accompanying rubrics printed in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) serve as the common Sursum Corda, Prefaces, Sanctus, and rubrics for the three orders that follow, the two additions, except in the case of the so-called "The Canadian Order, 1962," change the theology of these orders from that of the Prayer Books from which they were adapted.
The Three Orders:
In the introductory notes to The Order for the Holy Communion in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), the compilers of the book point to the attention of those using the book that, for the second half of the Service, the Ministry of the Sacrament, worship planners may choose from three orders-the English, the American and the Canadian. They go on to claim that these orders "have the same textual material but use it in different ways, and thereby, illustrate the major ways the text of the Eucharist has been organized and celebrated in the classic tradition of Common Prayer in the Anglican Way from the 1662 to the present." They fail to mention that the three orders actually are comprised of different textual material and embody desperate theologies. They also neglect to say that the three orders are not word for word translations of the texts in the three Prayer Books from which they were taken. Additions and alterations have been made to these texts. None of these changes were necessitated by the translation of the traditional language of the three Prayer Books into modern idiom. The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) have also made other changes so that each order is in actuality not that of the Prayer Book which it is supposed to represent; and the theology of the so-called English, American and Canadian Orders in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is not the theology of the English, American, and Canadian Prayer Books.
The claim that the three orders in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) "illustrate the major ways the text of the Eucharist has been organized and celebrated in the classic tradition of Common Prayer in the Anglican Way from the 1662 to the present..." glosses over significant theological differences between the three Prayer Books from which these orders have been adapted. The three orders where they are faithful to the Prayer Books that they are supposed to represent do illustrate how three different theological strands in Anglicanism have ordered the Lord's Supper. Of the three Prayer Books, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, to a lesser extent, give expression to the Biblical-Reformation theology of classical Anglicanism.
The 1928 American Prayer Book and its Scottish Non-Juror antecedents stand in a different tradition. The Non-Jurors sought to reform Anglican worship after the pattern of Medieval worship, and reintroduced practices and doctrines that the Church of England had rejected at the Reformation. They argued that precedence existed for these practices and doctrines in the Patristic writings and the Eastern Church. They did not exercise the caution toward the authority of the early Church that the Reformers and the Elizabethan bishops had done. This led them to develop extreme views such as Christ did not offer himself for our sins upon the cross but at the institution of the Eucharist. In this view Christ was only slain upon the cross. Christ's suffering upon the cross was not a distinct sacrifice from the oblation that he made in the Eucharist but was the continuance or necessary consequence of that oblation. In his offering of himself for our sins at the institution of the Eucharist, Christ also instituted the sacrifice of the Eucharist. (The Non-Jurors also argued if Christ had not begun his oblation of himself at the Institution of the Eucharist, but had made that oblation solely on the cross, then no oblation should be made in the Eucharist.) [3] It is this view of the sacrifice of the Eucharist that is expressed in the 1764 Scottish Non Juror Prayer of Consecration with its omission of the word "there" from the clause "who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice," its offering of the bread and wine after the Words of Institution, its invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine, and its petition that the bread and wine "may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son." The 1928 American Prayer of Consecration is derived from the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration.
The English Order, 1662:
In the order that the compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) label "The English Order, 1662," they drop the seventeenth century rubrics, or follow them in general terms, ostensibly "to take account of both greater congregational participation, and more flexibility in the use of spiritual songs and hymns." In their omission of a number of these rubrics they also drop key elements of the Biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. They omit the rubric that directs that the Minister deliver the Communion to the people into their hands, an ancient practice that was restored in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, which with Communion in both kinds, another ancient practice restored in the 1549 Prayer Book, was among the important reforms of the sixteenth century. The Medieval Catholic Church's suppression of these practices had contributed to the decidedly unscriptural evolution of the Eucharist from a Holy Communion into a sacrifice at which the elevation of the consecrated bread and wine for their adoration was the highpoint for the laity instead of the communion of the people. By the time of the English Reformation the laity was receiving Communion only in one kind, the bread, which was placed upon their tongues by the priest, and then outside the Mass once a year at Easter after private confession and absolution. With the revival of these ancient practices Archbishop Thomas Cranmer sought to restore the Eucharist as a Holy Communion and the frequent communion of the people. In the rubrics before the distribution of the Communion the 1662 Communion Service state "When he delivereth the bread, he shall say...;" but the so-called "The English Order, 1662" expunges this important avowal and substitutes for it, "The following words of administration are used."
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the rubric that prohibits a celebration of the Lord's Supper, except when there is sufficient number of people to communicate with the priest. They drop the rubric that requires that "the bread be such as is usual to be eaten" so as "take away all occasion of dissension and superstition, which any person might hath or might have concerning the bread and wine." They omit the rubric that prohibits any leftover consecrated bread and wine from being carried out of the church and require its consumption immediately after the blessing. They also drop the Declaration on Kneeling - the affirmation at the close of the 1662 Communion Service that in kneeling to receive Communion "no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very nature substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred by all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) add a rubric that permits the singing of the Agnes Dei during the distribution of the Communion. They also add rubrics that permit the reservation of Communion for the sick and the consumption of any leftover consecrated bread and wine either after the distribution of the Communion or at the end of the service.
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the 1662 Communion Service's provision for the consecration of additional bread and wine from the "The English Order, 1662."
Due to these omissions, additions, and alterations the theology of "The English Order, 1662" in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is not that of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and should be a source of great concern for Anglicans faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book. The theology of "The English Order, 1662" and the theology of the other two orders, as we shall see, should give them cause to think twice about using An Anglican Prayer Book (2008).
The American Order, 1928:
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) were not content to tinker with the theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This can be seen in a comparison of the Oblation in the Prayer of Consecration in the 1928 American Prayer Book and the Oblation in the Prayer of Consecration in so-called "The American Order, 1928."
The Oblation in Prayer of Consecration in the 1928 American Prayer Book reads as follows:
"O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same."
Now this Oblation is itself a departure from the theology given expression in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Books that preceded it. The anamnesis in the Canon in the 1549 Prayer Book, "the memorial which thy son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension" is "so worded as to avoid any reference to any offering or sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ or of the bread and wine of the people's oblation." [4] As previously noted the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books remove from the Prayer of Consecration any suggestion of a oblation or sacrifice other than the "full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world" that Christ made upon the cross, "by his one oblation once offered." They omit the anamnesis altogether, and reword and move the petition for the acceptance of "this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" and the offering of "our self, our souls, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee" to a position after the Communion, where they are combined with the petition that God accept the "bounden duty and service" of those present and made an alternative to a slightly revised version of the 1549 Prayer of Thanksgiving. This Prayer of Thanksgiving also serves as a second Prayer of Oblation.
The 1928 American Prayer of Consecration, on the other hand, contains an offering of the bread and wine with which those present will be making and celebrating in God's presence the memorial that Christ has commanded them to make. The language of the oblation in the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration parallels that of the oblation in the Roman Canon. With the exception of one clause, "the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make," the words of the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration are essentially the words of the Roman Canon. The 1928 American Prayer of Consecration substitutes this clause for "an immaculate sacrifice, a holy sacrifice, an immaculate sacrifice, or host, the holy bread of eternal life, and, the cup of perpetual salvation" of the Roman Canon.
Since the 1928 American Order for the Holy Communion, like the Medieval Sarum Mass, has an offering of the bread and wine before they are laid on the Table after the Offertory, this second offering represents something more than the offering of the bread and wine for holy use, for this offering has already taken place. If the epiclesis is regarded as the moment of consecration, it is one step short of the offering of the consecrated elements, a usage connected to the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass.
The Oblation in the Prayer of Consecration in "The American Order, 1928" in An Anglican Prayer (2008) takes that short step:
"And so, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of your dearly loved Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, we, your humble servants, do celebrate and make before your Divine Majesty, which we now offer to you, the memorial your Son has commanded us to make; and, as we do so, we remember his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; and we offer to you most sincere thanks for the benefits without number, procured for us by the same."
In offering the memorial itself to God instead of the bread and wine with which those present will celebrate and make the memorial, the priest in "The American Order, 1928" is also offering the consecrated bread and wine to God. The memorial consist of taking bread and wine, giving thanks, breaking the bread and giving the bread and the cup with the Dominical Words of Institution. The bread and wine of the memorial is the bread and wine that has been set apart for holy use. This offering of the consecrated bread and wine in the memorial is open to a variety of interpretations, including the interpretation that what is being offered is a proprietary sacrifice as in the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass.
Even the second offering of the bread and wine in the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration is open to this interpretation. In the tradition of the Western Church Christ the word of God is regarded as consecrating through the repetition of his words in the Institutional Narrative. The oblation of the bread and wine in the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration follows the Words of Institution. In the course of the Words of Institution the priest breaks the bread. From this perspective the bread and wine that the priest is offering is consecrated, set apart for holy use.
Archbishop Thomas Cranmer appears to have recognized that the offering of the bread and wine after the recitation of the words of the Institutional Narrative admits an interpretation as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead as he omitted that offering from the 1549 Canon. Archbishop Cranmer not only omitted the offering of the bread and wine after the Words of Institution in the 1549 Canon, but he also omitted another usage from the Medieval Sarum Mass-the offering of the bread and wine after the Offertory, in which the priest offers the bread and wine to God in readiness for its use in the sacrifice of the Mass before laying the unconsecrated elements upon the Table. The offering of the bread and wine after the Offertory and after the Words of Institution in the Canon have strong associations with the Medieval doctrines of Transubstantiation and of the sacrifice of the Mass.
Cranmer and the English Reformers rejected the doctrine of Transubstantiation as contrary to the teaching of Christ, to reason, to the evidence of the senses, and to "the faith and doctrine of the old authors of Christ's church." [5] They were also uncompromising in its repudiation of the sacrifice of the Mass, a doctrine "indissolubly connected with the theory of transubstantiation", out of the conviction that "it is dishonoring to Christ and incompatible with the New Testament doctrine of salvation". [6] Classical Anglicanism also puts aside these doctrines as not to be accepted, practiced, or believed. Article 28 declares that Transubstantiation "cannot be proved by Holy Scripture but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given rise to many superstitions." Article 31 further declares, "the sacrifices of masses, in which it is commonly said that the priest offers Christ for the living and the dead, to obtain the remission of their punishment or guilt, are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." [7]
In compiling the First Prayer Book of 1549 Cranmer sought to remove all suggestions of an oblation or sacrifice from the Communion Service. The offertory sentences have no Eucharistic reference. The preparation of the bread and wine takes place without any ceremony. [8]
The 1928 American Order for the Holy Communion restores both usages from the Medieval Sarum Mass. This represents a significant departure from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1604 Prayer Books that preceded it.
A modified doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice has gained some currency among Anglicans and Episcopalians. This doctrine, while it rejects the Roman view which associates a sacrifice or oblation in the Eucharist with Christ's death, seek to connect such a sacrifice or oblation with the heavenly priesthood of our Lord. This notion of Eucharistic sacrifice is defined in a number of ways:
"Some have spoken of the suffering of Christ as a temporal revelation and reflection of something that ever continues in the presence of God. Some have spoken of the risen life that Christ now lives, and the intercession that he now makes, as having the character of sacrificial self-offering. Some...have spoken of Christ always standing before God's throne, presenting, offering, or pleading his earthly sacrifice. Then the church's sacrifice is explained in terms of pleading Christ's death for the remission of our own and others' sins as we offer all that we are and have to God. This pleading is said to be a 're-presenting' (not a symbolizing, but a fresh offering or a 'making present again') of Christ's sacrifice to the Father in union with Christ himself as he re-presents it; and the church's corporate self-offering in Christ, within which our re-presenting of Calvary finds its place, is seen as the main purpose of, and the central action in the eucharistic liturgy." [9]
In this view of Eucharistic sacrifice "the sacrifice of Christ is more than his once-for-all death on Calvary, and in some sense continues into the present; and "the church's union with Christ is such that Christians are incorporated, not merely into his death and resurrection, but into his present sacrificing activity as well." [10] What happens in the Eucharist is not a repetition of Christ's sacrifice, nor an addition to it, but it is more than a commemoration of that sacrifice. It is a participation in it. [11]
As W. H. Griffith Thomas points to our attention in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, those who teach this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice wrongly associate the Holy Communion with Christ in heaven, for everything in the Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer associates the Lord's Supper with the death of Christ and not with his life in heaven. [12]
He lists five considerations that we should weigh in the study of this view. First, no trace of any such idea can be found in Ante-Nicene history. Second, nothing in the New Testament provides a Scriptural basis for the belief that Christ is presenting before God the sacrifice once offered on the Cross. Neither the New Testament nor the 1662 Prayer Book teach such a doctrine. Third, no sacrifice is associated with our Lord in heaven either in the New Testament or the 1662 Prayer Book. Fourth, in a sacrament the movement is from God to man. In a sacrifice it is from man to God. This is a major difference between a sacrament and a sacrifice. Fifth, the idea of our Lord offering or pleading in heaven is not found anywhere in Scripture. [13]
As Griffith Thomas further points to our attention in his discussion of the Lord's Supper in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, when Christ says, "do this in remembrance of me," touto poieō, "do this," does not mean "offer this." He writes:
"The force of the present tense in the Greek is 'Do this again and again,' i.e.. 'perform this action." [14]
Anamnēsis, "remembrance," he stresses, in the Greek "means an act of the mind recalling and never an objective memorial." He goes on to write:
"The two Greek words for "remembrance" and "memorial" are never identical, but always carefully distinguished." [15]
He further points to our attention that the indirect object of the verb kataggellō,"proclaim," in 1 Corinthians 11:26 is "always man, never God. It cannot possibly mean 'exhibit before God.'" [16]
In his discussion of the idea of Eucharistic sacrifice in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles he reiterates that touto poieō, "do this," in the Institutional Narratives cannot be rendered as "offer this," anamnēsis, "remembrance" as a "memorial before God," and kataggellō, "proclaim" with God, and not man, as the object. [17]
He goes on to point to our attention that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer follows the New Testament and has three sacrifices only-the sacrifices of ourselves (Romans 12:1); our gifts (Hebrews 13:16); and our praises (Hebrews 13:15). The 1662 Prayer Book does not even have an oblation of the unconsecrated elements. [18]
He concludes:
"In the Lord's Supper Christ is neither offered to God, nor for man, but He is offered to man in all the efficacy of His atoning sacrifice, to be received by faith. It would be well if we could avoid ambiguous terms. Even such a phrase as 'commemorative sacrifice' is ambiguous, for strictly, it is not this, but the commemoration of a sacrifice. If, however, the words 'Eucharistic Sacrifice' means some sacrifice which is offered only in and at the Lord's Supper, it is clear that no such idea is found either in the Bible or in the Prayer Book." [19]
"Of a piece with" this view of Eucharistic sacrifice, to use the words of J.I. Packer, is what Packer describes as the "fancy" that the "remembrance," or anamnesis, of Christ in the Eucharist is directed to God, "as if Jesus' words 'do this in remembrance of me' had meant 'do this to remind my Father of me'. [20]
Packer draws to our attention that, while directly the Thirty Nine Articles say nothing about this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice, indirectly they say a lot. He goes on to identify a number of principles laid down in Articles 25-26 and 28-31, which this doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice appears to contravene. [21]
The first of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are "signs of the gospel, with their meaning fixed by the gospel." "The 'sacraments of the gospel,'" Packer reminds us, "are 'effectual signs of grace' by which God works to 'quicken...strengthen and confirm our faith in him' (Article 25)." "But to know what the gospel and grace and faith are," he stresses, "we have to look back to Articles 9-18, which the sacramental Articles presuppose." [22]
The second of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are "acts of God terminating on men."-"'signs...by the which (God) doth work in...in us (Article 25)." Packer makes the same point as W. H. Griffith Thomas, that in a sacrament the movement is from God to us. God is the chief agent and his work is the chief action. [23]
The third of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion "proclaim God's work for and in man." Packer writes:
"Baptism is 'a sign of regeneration, or new birth' (Article 27) through union with Christ in his death and resurrection; the Lord's Supper is 'a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death', in which those united to Christ by faith partake of his body and blood (Article 28). Thus both sacraments exhibit Christ's atoning achievements and benefits which flow from it to us here and now." [24]
The fourth of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion "are means by which God works faith." The Thirty Nine Articles tell us the gospel sacraments are means of grace and "convey the blessings that signify...to those who receive them 'worthily'-'rightly, worthily, and with faith' (Article 25, 28)". Packer goes on to note:
"Right reception is believing reception. 'The mean(s) whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten is faith' (Article 28)." [25]
He further notes:
"And the sacraments, in their character as visible words and acted promises, are God's instrument to 'not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him' (Article 25). They function as means of grace precisely because God makes them means to faith. The essential sacramental action is his coming to us sinners to call forth our faith through the sign and through that faith to impart to us the benefits of Jesus' death." [26]
"Believing and receiving," Packer tells us, "are the essence of sacramental worship." "Those who have received sacraments should indeed give themselves to God, but such self-giving is a response to the grace made known in the sacrament and not strictly part of the sacrament itself. That is the view clearly expressed in the 1662 Communion office." [27]
The modified doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice that has been circulating among Anglicans and Episcopalians conflicts with all four of these principles. It is not determined by the gospel as the gospel is presented in the New Testament. This view of Eucharistic sacrifice, Packer draws to our attention, "insists that Christ's sacrifice continues in heaven, whereas Scripture equates his sacrifice with his death and proclaims his work of offering as finished. Also this doctrine labours to assimilate our self-offering to his, where as Scripture does the opposite, stressing the uniqueness of Christ's vicarious sacrificial death and keeping it distinct from the sacrifice of praise and service that is our response to it. These emphases were not learned from the biblical gospel." [28]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "turns the Lord's Supper into an act of man terminating on God." Packer further draws to our attention:
"The essential action ceases to be God's sacramental offering of Christ to men, and becomes our sacrificial offering of ourselves with Christ to God. But this is to embrace an unbiblical fantasy about the re-presenting of Calvary and to treat our response to the sacrament as if it were the sacrament itself." [29]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "makes the Lord's Supper a symbolizing not of Christ's sacrifice so much as of ours." Packer notes:
"The service turns into a showing forth primarily of the church's devotion, and of the Lord's death only incidentally. But this impoverishes sacramental worship, not enriches it." [30]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "minimizes the function of the Lord's Supper as a means of grace." "On this view, the church comes to the eucharist to give rather than to get;" Packer further notes, "not primarily to receive, but to offer itself in thanksgiving for what it has received already. This cuts across the view of the Articles, that the Lord's Supper is first and foremost a means for God to strengthen faith and to communicate to believing hearts the fruits of Calvary." [31]
Packer concludes that, now five centuries ago, the Thirty-Nine Articles anticipated this doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and "ruled it out as misshapen." He writes:
"To any currently attracted by it they suggest a question: is it not a poor thing compared with that which it seeks to supplant? Ultimately, of course, that question must be answered by Scripture, but surely it is the right question for us to face in this matter, and surely the Articles do us a service by pointing it up for us." [32]
The preceding discussion of the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice both in its Medieval and more recent forms and its incompatibility with the proposed and agreed standards for faith and worship of the Anglican Mission-the Bible, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer-is relevant not only to "The American Order, 1928" but also to the so-called "The Canadian Order, 1962," as we shall see below. But before we go on to that order, let us first complete our examination of the American order.
"The American Order, 1928" places the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access before the distribution of the Communion, as in the Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1928 American Prayer Book, and permits the people to join the priest in the Prayer of Humble Access. The positioning of the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access before the distribution and the singing or recitation of the Benedictus before the distribution and the signing of the Agnes Dei during the distribution can and have been interpreted to teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation. In Episcopal churches where this doctrine has been maintained and taught, the permission to sing a hymn before the distribution in the 1928 American Order for the Lord's Supper has been used to sing the Agnus Dei before the distribution in imitation of the Medieval Sarum Mass.
The rubrics for the distribution of the Communion in "The American Order, 1928" are identical to those for the distribution of the Communion in the so-called "The English Order, 1662." The significance of these changes is discussed in the section titled "The English Order, 1662" above. The discussion of the general rubrics at the end of the Communion Service in that section is also applicable, including the discussion concerning the Declaration on Kneeling which was omitted from the 1928 American Prayer Book and its predecessors.
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the 1928 American Communion Service's provision for the consecration of additional bread and wine from "The American Order, 1928."
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the disciplinary rubrics that are printed before the 1662 Communion Service and after the 1928 American and 1962 Canadian Communion Services. These rubrics permit the priest to bar from the Holy Communion anyone that he knows is living in grievous sin or those between whom he perceives malice and hatred to exist. One of the criticisms of Anglicanism in North America in recent years has been the lack of church discipline. The omission of these rubrics is surprising.
The Canadian Order, 1962:
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) in their theological tinkering did not spare "The Canadian Order, 1962". The 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration contains a petition, "And we pray that by the power of thy Holy Spirit, all we who are partakers of this holy Communion may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction." The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) have expanded the clause "by the power of your Holy Spirit" to "by the presence and power of your Holy Spirit," changing the meaning of the clause.
The compilers of the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book felt a need to define the means by which the partakers of the Holy Communion were filled with God's grace and heavenly benediction. A comparison of this petition with similar petitions in the Sarum Canon, the 1549 Canon, and the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration may suggest an explanation for this particular choice of wording. The petition in the Sarum Canon follows the consecration and offering of the bread and wine: "We most humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these things to be carried by the hand of Thy Holy Angel to Thy Altar on high, in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty, that as many as shall partake at this Altar of the most Sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son may be with all heavenly grace and blessing." The petition in the 1549 Canon follows the consecration of the bread and wine and the offering of "ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice unto thee." It asks God to grant that "...whosoever shall be partakers of this holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy son Jesus Christ: and be fulfilled with thy grace and benediction, and made one body with thy son Jesu Christ, that he may dwell in them, and they in him." The petition in the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration adopts the language of the 1549 Canon, and follows an offering of the bread and wine, an epiclesis, a petition for God's acceptance of the congregation's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and an offering of "ourselves, our souls and bodies" as "a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice" to God. Both the 1549 Canon and the 1928 American Prayer Book appear to take the view that God's grace and heavenly benediction are imparted by the bread and wine of the sacrament and those who worthily receive the sacrament will be filled with God's grace and heavenly benediction.
On the other hand, the petition in the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration follows the consecration of the bread and wine and the petition, "And we entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion...." The 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration contains no spoken offering of the bread and wine and no spoken offering of "ourselves, our souls and bodies" In praying that by the power of the Holy Spirit those who are partakers of the Holy Communion will be filled with God's grace and heavenly benediction, the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration appears to take the view that the Holy Spirit imparts God's grace and heavenly benediction to the communicants apart from the bread and wine but this imparting accompanies the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup. This same petition is also used in the 1958 West Indian Prayer of Consecration, suggesting that it can be given a different interpretation since that prayer is decidedly Anglo-Catholic in its view of the Eucharist.
The alteration of the clause, "by the power of the Holy Spirit," to "by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit," depending upon how one interprets the clause, appears to rule out the automatic operation of the sacrament. It does not appear to suggest that everyone who receives Communion will receive some benefit from it-only believers. According to the teaching of the Bible, the Holy Spirit is present in people and not in inanimate objects, and then the Holy Spirit is only present in those who believe in Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Bible do we find anything that approximates the belief of the ancient Egyptians that their gods and goddesses inhabited their idols or the belief of African animists that spirits inhabit their fetishes and the associated belief that gods, goddesses, and spirits can inhabit animals or foodstuffs. In such a view the bread and wine of the Communion could confer a blessing upon even those who have no faith. This change appears to move the doctrine of "The Canadian Order, 1962", at least in this particular instant, closer to that of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
In regards to the idea of a sacrifice or oblation in the Eucharist the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration and the Prayer of Consecration in "The Canadian Order, 1962" both express the desire that God "accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." They also juxtapose the words, "we thy humble servants, with all thy holy Church... do make before thee, in this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation, the memorial which he hath commanded..." or the contemporary English equivalent immediately before this petition so that "this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" refers to the memorial that Christ has commanded.
The words "the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation" used in the phrase "in this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation" in the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration and the Prayer of Consecration of "The Canadian Order, 1962" are adapted from words used in the offering of the consecrated bread and wine in the Medieval Sarum Canon: "O Lord, we Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, being mindful of the Blessed Passion of this Christ Thy Son, our Lord and God; and of His Resurrection from the dead, and of His glorious Ascension into heaven, offer unto Thy most excellent Majesty of Thy gifts bestowed upon us a pure Host, an Holy Host, a Host immaculate, the Holy Bread of Eternal life, and the Chalice of Everlasting salvation."
The same words are used in the anamnesis-oblation of the 1954 South African Prayer of Consecration: "Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants, having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, do render unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same; and, looking for his coming again with power and great glory, we offer here unto thy divine majesty this holy Bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation..." While the anamnesis-oblation precede the epiclesis, it is itself preceded by the petition "Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we, receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood" and the Words of Institution. From the standpoint of the Western Church and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer the bread and wine offered in the anamnesis-oblation of the 1954 South African Prayer of Consecration are consecrated.
The words "holy Bread of eternal life and "Cup of everlasting salvation" are also used in the anamnesis-oblation of the 1959 West Indian Prayer of Consecration in which there can be no doubt as to whether the bread and wine that are offered are consecrated as the anamnesis-oblation follows the epiclesis and the Institutional Narrative: "Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy servants with all thy holy people, having in remembrance the blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension of thy beloved Son, do offer here unto thy Divine Majesty this holy Bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation, rendering thanks unto thee for the wonderful redemption which thou hast wrought for us in Him." The anamnesis-oblation in the 1959 West Indian prayer of Consecration is juxtaposed to the petition: "And we beseech thee, O Father, to accept upon thy heavenly altar this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his passion." "This our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" refers to "this holy Bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation."
The "sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation" of the anamnesis in the 1962 Canadian prayer of Consecration and the Prayer of Consecration of "The Canadian Order, 1962" also refers to the consecrated bread and wine since both prayers adopt the consecratory form of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the anamnesis follows the consecration. The memorial that the two prayers desire God to accept as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is the offering of the consecrated bread and wine. While these prayers do not have a straightforward spoken offering of the consecrated bread and wine, they do have an offering of the consecrated elements. When they speak of "this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation," they are really speaking of this offering of Christ's Body and Blood. The phrase "this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation" is simply a euphemistic way of saying the Body and Blood of Christ.
"The Canadian Order, 1962" places the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access before the distribution of the Communion, as in the Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, and permits the people to join the priest in the Prayer of Humble Access. The positioning of the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access before the distribution and the singing or recitation of the Benedictus before the distribution and the signing of the Agnes Dei during the distribution, as I have previously noted, can and have been interpreted to teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The permission in the 1962 Canadian Communion Office to sing hymns and anthems, including the Agnes Dei, in the Communion time has been used to replicate the devotions before the distribution in the Medieval Sarum Mass.
As in the case of the "The American Order, 1928", the rubrics for the distribution of the Communion in the so-called "The Canadian Order, 1962" are identical to those for the distribution of the Communion in the "The English Order, 1662." The significance of these changes is discussed in the section titled "The English Order, 1662" above. The discussion of the general rubrics at the end of the Communion Service in that section is also applicable, including the discussion concerning the Declaration on Kneeling which was omitted from the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.
None of the three orders, the English, the American, or the Canadian, makes provision for any posture in which the communicants might receive Communion other than kneeling. Anglicans have knelt to receive Communion from the Second Prayer Book of Common Prayer of 1552 on. (The First Prayer Book of 1549 is silent on the matter.) Kneeling to receive the Bread and the Cup embodies the sacramental theology given expression in the 1552, 1559, and 1662 Prayer Books in which the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is conceived in terms of God's action toward us. God is the giver and we are the receivers. Consequently, kneeling can be regarded as the preferred posture for receiving Communion.
At the same time the New Testament does not prescribe a posture in which the communicants should receive Communion. In the Old Testament those who observe the first Passover are instructed to stand with their staff in their hand. The disciples are described as reclining at the Last Supper. Kneeling, standing, and sitting to receive Communion are all agreeable to Scripture.
Standing to receive Communion is a much older custom than kneeling. It was the practice of the early Church. The custom of kneeling to receive Communion originated in the Middle Ages.
Under some circumstances communicants may not be able to kneel to receive Communion. For a number of years my grandmother was prevented from receiving Communion because she had arthritis and was not able to kneel. Only after the 1979 Book of Common Prayer was adopted with its provision permitting standing as well as kneeling to receive Communion was she able to share the Lord's Supper again. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) would greatly benefit from a provision that, when circumstances require it, permits communicants to stand to receive the Communion at the Lord's Table or to remain in their seats and receive Communion where they are seated.
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the 1962 Canadian Communion Service's provision for the consecration of additional bread and wine from the "The Canadian Order, 1962."
Both the Prayer of Consecration in the "The Canadian Order, 1962" and the Post-Communion Collect in that order have a petition asking God to fill the partakers of the Holy Communion with his grace and heavenly benediction. The Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book has only one such petition-in the Prayer of Consecration. Apparently the compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) did not consider one petition to be adequate enough and added a second petition. Perhaps they believe that Canadian Anglicans need twice as much of God's grace and heavenly benediction than do other Anglicans and Episcopalians in North America. Or they cut and pasted a part of the text from the first Post-Communion Collect in "The English Order, 1662" and neglected to delete the words "Fill us all who share in this Holy Communion with your grace and heavenly benediction" from it. This suggests carelessness, a lack of familiarity with the 1962 Canadian Liturgy, or hastiness in publishing An Anglican Prayer Book (2008).
The Dismissal:
In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the 1928 American Prayer Book, and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book the Blessing, "The peace of God which passeth all understanding...," serves as the dismissal of the people. The rubrics in all three Prayer Books state that after the Gloria in Excelsis "the Priest (or the Bishop if he be present) shall let them depart with this Blessing." The text of the foregoing Blessing follows the rubric. A hymn or organ voluntary may follow during which the ministers go out. But this hymn or voluntary is not really a part of the service. In the time of Elizabeth I permission was given to sing a metrical psalm before and after the sermon and before and after the service, and it subsequently became customary to sing a hymn after the service. The rubrics of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) direct the minister to conclude the service with a contemporary English version of the foregoing Blessing in each of the orders, English, American, and Canadian.
Appended to the three orders, however, is a section labeled "For the ending of all three Orders." This section contains a rubric authorizing the singing of a recessional hymn and the use of a concluding prayer by the Minister. Printed below this rubric are two contemporary English versions of Collects that in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer are used to conclude the service when there is no Communion. This rubric formalizes what is regarded in the literature as a bad liturgical practice, that of saying a string of devotions and prayers after the conclusion of the service. The people have been dismissed with a Blessing. The Mass is ended!
As soon as the ministers have gone out, it is time for the people to depart-after they have, of course, finished the hymn if a hymn is sung. If a voluntary is played, they may leave during the voluntary. Having offered God their praise and service, the time has come for them to go back into the world; to "show forth" God's praise, not only with their lips, but in their lives; and to serve God in the world. After the Blessing is the ideal place for a rousing mission hymn or stirring voluntary to help send the people forth into the world.
If a concluding prayer is desired, a better place for it is before the parting Blessing. The 1926 Irish Prayer Book makes provision for the use of a Prayer for Mission or other suitable collect before the Blessing or after the Collect of the Day. The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) would have done better to incorporate this provision into An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) than to give legal form to an undesirable practice. It might be customary in some churches but it is a custom that has been allowed to grow up when it ought to have been discouraged.
Conclusion:
When measured by the proposed and agreed standards for faith and worship of the Anglican Mission the Ministry of the Sacrament of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) comes up short. As the foregoing discussion of Eucharistic sacrifice shows, An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) gives expression to theology that is not Scriptural and which conflicts with principles found in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Some of the textual material and its arrangement in the three orders in the Ministry of the Sacrament is open to the interpretation that it teaches the doctrine of Transubstantiation, a doctrine that classical Anglicanism rejects. While An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) may be based to some extent upon the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the theology of the two other Prayer Books upon which it is based, and the theology of the compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) obscure and overshadow whatever Biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Prayer Book is incorporated into the book.
Peter Toon described An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) in an email to this writer as the work of "special group of men" at "a special time in history" intended to "create a bridge" for those who have been using the 1979 Book of Common Prayer to what he described as "genuine Anglican doctrine and experience," and therefore in his opinion should not be subjected to what he characterized as "private judgment." But the Anglican doctrine and experience to which An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) seeks to create a bridge is not that of classical Anglicanism - of the English Reformation, the Elizabethan Settlement, and the reign of James I. It is the doctrine and experience of a later theological stream in Anglicanism, a theological stream that diverges in a number of significant ways from classical Anglicanism. In a sense An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) seeks to move those who are using the 1979 Prayer Book from what may be viewed as one divergent tradition to another. It fails to acknowledge that the theological stream that it would have users of the 1979 Prayer Book embrace helped to pave the way, for example, in its emphasis upon the authority of the Church rather than the authority of Scripture, for the emergence of the divergent tradition of which the 1979 Prayer Book is a part.
The Book of Common Prayer with the Bible occupies such a central place in the faith and worship of Anglican Christians that any revision of the Prayer Book, as in the case of any new translation of the Bible, must always be the subject of close public scrutiny.
The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 was a compromise between High Churchmen and those who held to a more Reformed theology. Those of more pronounced views on either side were, it must be admitted, not happy with it. However, the 1662 Prayer Book has served the Church of England well for more than 300 years. The 1662 Book is the most widely used service book in the Anglican Communion to this day. With the Holy Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Thirty-Nine Articles it is one of the standards for faith and worship of the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Australia, and a number of other Anglican provinces. It has nourished the faith of generations of biblically faithful Anglicans, well as ordered their worship.
An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) sets aside that compromise. While An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is, in some ways, itself a compromise of sorts, too much, from a doctrinal standpoint, is given away for the little that is received in return. It is a compromise, if it can be really called that, which is made largely at the expense of the Biblical-Reformation theology of classical Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This suggests that the latter were not adequately or effectively represented in the process of compiling the book. In setting aside that compromise, An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) puts itself at odds with the very standards for faith and worship that the Anglican Mission has proposed for its member churches and to which it has agreed.
Biblically faithful Christians desiring services in contemporary English, which adhere to the Biblical-Reformation theology of classical Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Prayer Book are well advised to look elsewhere.
Endnotes:
[1] Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England From Cranmer to Hooker 1534-1603, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1970, p. 206
[2] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing 2007, p. 82
[3] Henry Broxap, "Appendix II: Non-Juror Doctrines and Ceremonies," The Later Non-Jurors, Cambridge 1928, pp. 1-3-electronic edition, Project Canterbury 2002
[4] Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England From Cranmer to Hooker 1534-1603, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1970, p. 189
[5] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers, Abington, PA: Horseradish, 1997, pp. 185-186
[6] Ibid, p. 194
[7] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Restatement of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, The Church of England in South Africa, 1988
[8] Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England From Cranmer to Hooker 1534-1603, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1970, p. 188
[9] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing 2007, pp. 81-82
[10] Ibid., p. 81
[11] Ibid., p. 81
[12] W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Theological Seminary 1996, p. 424
[13] Ibid., pp. 424-425
[14] Ibid., p. 392
[15] Ibid., p. 392
[16] Ibid., p. 392
[17] Ibid., p. 424
[18] Ibid., p. 425
[19] Ibid., p. 426
[20] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing 2007, p. 82
[21] Ibid., p. 82
[22] Ibid., p. 83
[23] Ibid., p. 83
[24] Ibid., p. 83
[25] Ibid., pp. 83-84
[26] Ibid., pp. 84
[27] Ibid., p. 84
[28] Ibid., p. 84
[29] Ibid., pp. 84-85
[30] Ibid., p. 85
[31] Ibid., p. 85
[32] Ibid., p. 85
The Penitential Preparation is derived from the Order of Communion of 1548, which was inserted in the Ministry of the Sacrament of the First Prayer Book of 1549 after "Christ our Pascall lambe is offred up for us...". In the Second Prayer Book of 1552 the Order of Communion was broken up. The First Exhortation, the Second Exhortation ("Ye that do truly repent..."), the General Confession, the Absolution, and the Comfortable Words were placed before the Prayer of Consecration; the Prayer of Humble Access was placed after the Sanctus; and the Words of Distribution after the Prayer of Consecration. In An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) the Penitential Preparation –the First Exhortation, the Second Exhortation ("Ye that do truly repent..."), the General Confession, the Absolution, and the Comfortable Words-are placed before the Prayer of Consecration as in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayers Books, the 1789, 1892, and 1928 American Prayer Books, and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.
The Penitential Preparation:
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the first two forms of the First Exhortation from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and substitute for the third form a revision of that form. The version of the third form of the First Exhortation in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is not a word for word translation of the 1662 form into modern idiom. Instead of addressing the congregation as "Dearly beloved in the Lord..." the revised form addressed them as "Fellow baptized Christians...". The revision also does away with the Scriptural language and allusions of the original.
The Exhortation "Ye that do truly repent..." has been altered slightly. It begins "If you truly repent..." and the phrase "take this holy Sacrament to strengthen and comfort you" has been substituted for "...and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort." The words "meekly kneeling upon your knees" have been dropped. The omission of these words appears to recognize that those using An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) may, under certain circumstances, not be able to kneel for the General Confession. The rubrics, however, after permitting a pause for self-examination direct all to say the General Confession, kneeling.
An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) would have benefited from a General Directions for Public Worship section with a note pointing to the attention of users of the book that where a certain posture is particularly appropriate, it is indicated but these directions are suggestions only. Such a note would have helped to give the book the kind of flexibility needed for the wide variety of circumstances in which Anglican Mission congregations are worshiping.
The 1662 Order for the Lord's Supper:
Before we examine the Ministry of the Sacrament in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), let briefly review the history of the development of the Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer itself. I have modernized the spelling of texts from the 1549, 1552, and 1559 Prayer Books where I quote them.
The Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Prayer Book is the one that conforms to the standards for faith and worship set forth in the Proposed Constitution of the Anglican Mission in America-the Holy Scriptures, the Thirty Nine Articles of 1562 and The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. It is also the one that conforms to the standards for faith and worship that the Anglican Mission has agreed to accept in ratifying the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership:
1) We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.
2) We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and thus to be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
4) We confess as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in the three Catholic Creeds: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
5) Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils, and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7) We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.
Indeed the Proposed AMiA Constitution and the CCP Theological Statement establish the Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as normative for Anglican Mission churches.
The Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Prayer Book is substantially that of the Second Prayer Book of 1552 with some modifications. In the 1552 Prayer Book all references to the Offertory were omitted. The Penitential Preparation-the First Exhortation, the Second Exhortation ("Ye that do truly repent...") the General Confession, the Absolution, and the Comfortable Words, were moved to a position before the Canon, or Prayer of Consecration; "the Canon was so rearranged as to exclude the remotest possibility of its being interpreted as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." [1] The versicle and response "The Lord be with thee" "And with thy spirit," with its association with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, was dropped from the Sursum Corda. The Intercession was moved to a position where it had no connection with the Consecration, and the Prayer for the Dead was omitted. The Invocation of the Holy Spirit, or epiclesis, with its implication of a mutation of the elements and its affirmation of a corporal presence in the consecrated bread and wine was replaced with a petition that those receiving the bread and wine, in accordance with Christ's institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, might be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood. The Prayer for Humble Access was moved from its 1549 position before the distribution of the consecrated elements to a position immediately after the Sanctus where it could not be referring to the consecrated bread and wine. The phrase "in these holy mysteries" in the Prayer of Humble Access was omitted. The Benedictus with its implication of a corporal presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine was stricken out after the Sanctus. The 1552 Prayer Book also did away with the anamnesis of 1549. The Lord's Prayer was placed after the Communion. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and the oblation of "ourselves, our souls, and bodies" were reworded and placed after the Communion where they could not be associated in the minds of the people with the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass (or any other doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice) and where they served as " a response to the grace made known in the sacrament but no part of the sacramental action itself." [2]
At the distribution of the Communion the rubrics refer to the consecrated elements as "the bread" and "the cup." The rubrics direct the minister to first receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and then to deliver it other ministers, if any were present so that they might help the chief minister, and "after to the people in their hands kneeling." When he delivers the bread, he is directed to say these words: "Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." The minister who delivers the cup is directed to say these words: Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful." The Agnus Dei was omitted from the Communion because it implied a corporal presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine. It also had strong associations with the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the adoration of the consecrated Host.
The rubrics at the end of the service state that if any of the bread and wine remained, "the Curate shall have it to his own use."
At the time of its printing the Declaration on Kneeling, the so-called "Black Rubric," was added to the 1552 Prayer Book. It offers an explanation for the continuance of the Medieval custom of kneeling to receive Communion in the 1552 Prayer Book, a practice also associated with the adoration of the consecrated Host, the highpoint of the Medieval Mass for the laity, and the offering of fealty to one's liege lord in Medieval feudal society. It goes on to state:
"Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the Sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our savior Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ's natural body, to be in more places than one, at one time."
The Order for the Lord's Supper of the Prayer Book of 1559, the Prayer Book of the Elizabethan Settlement, "the" Prayer Book of the Church of England for almost 100 years, and the first Prayer Book used in North America, is that of the Second Prayer Book of 1552 but with two specific important changes. The 1559 Prayer Book amalgamated the Words of Distribution of the 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books. It dropped the Declaration on Kneeling.
The Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is a modest revision of that in the 1559 Prayer Book. The word "Offertory" is used in the rubrics. After the ingathering and presentation of the "the Alms for the Poor and the other devotions of the people" the priest is directed to "place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine, as he shall think sufficient, at that juncture in the service. The 1662 Prayer Book places an "Amen" at the conclusion of the Prayer of Consecration, restores the Manual Acts and the Fraction to the Consecration Prayer, retains the 1559 Words of Distribution, and restores the Declaration on Kneeling in a modified form. The 1662 Prayer Book also adds a form for the consecration of additional bread and wine. The rubrics direct that "when all have communicated, the Minister shall return to the Lord's Table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth of the consecrated Elements, covering the same with a fair white linen cloth." They further direct that if any remain of the consecrated bread and wine, "it shall not be carried out of the church, but the priest and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the Blessing eat and drink the same."
The Ministry of the Sacrament:
The Sursum Corda, the Prefaces, and the Sanctus: The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) add the versicle and response "The Lord be with you" "And with your spirit" to the Sursum Corda. This addition comes from the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book. As previously noted, this versicle and response were omitted from the 1552 Prayer Book due to its association with the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
The opening words of the Prayer of Consecration have been changed from those used in Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, the predecessor of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), issued in 2006 for restricted trial use in Anglican Mission churches for limited period of time. While the original wording worked well enough, the new wording will work even better. It flows smoothly off the tongue and focuses attention immediately upon God.
The first proper preface is adapted from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer the second from the 1928 American Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, the third from the 1928 American book and the 1926 Canadian book, the fourth from the 1962 Canadian, the fifth from the 1662 Prayer Book, the sixth from the 1662 book, the seventh from the 1962 Canadian, the eighth from the 1962 Canadian, the ninth from the 1928 American and 1962 Canadian, and the tenth, if my memory serves me, from the 1928 American. I did not find the last proper preface in the electronic editions of the 1928 American Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book that I consulted. I did find a similar preface in a number of other Anglican service books, including An Australian Prayer Book (1978). The quality of these proper prefaces varies. Some are better than others. Repeated use will identify the weakest.
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) have done away with the awkward wording of the Ordinary Preface and the Sanctus that helped to mar the Prayer of Consecration in Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. They have replaced it with wording much closer to that of the Ordinary Preface and the Sanctus in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This change is a decided improvement for which they are to be commended.
As well as adding the versicle and response "The Lord be with you" "And with your spirit," the compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) add a rubric that permit the recitation or singing of the Benedictus after the Sanctus or before the Communion. This addition also come from the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book. Since the Sursum Corda, Prefaces, Sanctus, and accompanying rubrics printed in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) serve as the common Sursum Corda, Prefaces, Sanctus, and rubrics for the three orders that follow, the two additions, except in the case of the so-called "The Canadian Order, 1962," change the theology of these orders from that of the Prayer Books from which they were adapted.
The Three Orders:
In the introductory notes to The Order for the Holy Communion in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008), the compilers of the book point to the attention of those using the book that, for the second half of the Service, the Ministry of the Sacrament, worship planners may choose from three orders-the English, the American and the Canadian. They go on to claim that these orders "have the same textual material but use it in different ways, and thereby, illustrate the major ways the text of the Eucharist has been organized and celebrated in the classic tradition of Common Prayer in the Anglican Way from the 1662 to the present." They fail to mention that the three orders actually are comprised of different textual material and embody desperate theologies. They also neglect to say that the three orders are not word for word translations of the texts in the three Prayer Books from which they were taken. Additions and alterations have been made to these texts. None of these changes were necessitated by the translation of the traditional language of the three Prayer Books into modern idiom. The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) have also made other changes so that each order is in actuality not that of the Prayer Book which it is supposed to represent; and the theology of the so-called English, American and Canadian Orders in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is not the theology of the English, American, and Canadian Prayer Books.
The claim that the three orders in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) "illustrate the major ways the text of the Eucharist has been organized and celebrated in the classic tradition of Common Prayer in the Anglican Way from the 1662 to the present..." glosses over significant theological differences between the three Prayer Books from which these orders have been adapted. The three orders where they are faithful to the Prayer Books that they are supposed to represent do illustrate how three different theological strands in Anglicanism have ordered the Lord's Supper. Of the three Prayer Books, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, to a lesser extent, give expression to the Biblical-Reformation theology of classical Anglicanism.
The 1928 American Prayer Book and its Scottish Non-Juror antecedents stand in a different tradition. The Non-Jurors sought to reform Anglican worship after the pattern of Medieval worship, and reintroduced practices and doctrines that the Church of England had rejected at the Reformation. They argued that precedence existed for these practices and doctrines in the Patristic writings and the Eastern Church. They did not exercise the caution toward the authority of the early Church that the Reformers and the Elizabethan bishops had done. This led them to develop extreme views such as Christ did not offer himself for our sins upon the cross but at the institution of the Eucharist. In this view Christ was only slain upon the cross. Christ's suffering upon the cross was not a distinct sacrifice from the oblation that he made in the Eucharist but was the continuance or necessary consequence of that oblation. In his offering of himself for our sins at the institution of the Eucharist, Christ also instituted the sacrifice of the Eucharist. (The Non-Jurors also argued if Christ had not begun his oblation of himself at the Institution of the Eucharist, but had made that oblation solely on the cross, then no oblation should be made in the Eucharist.) [3] It is this view of the sacrifice of the Eucharist that is expressed in the 1764 Scottish Non Juror Prayer of Consecration with its omission of the word "there" from the clause "who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice," its offering of the bread and wine after the Words of Institution, its invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine, and its petition that the bread and wine "may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son." The 1928 American Prayer of Consecration is derived from the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration.
The English Order, 1662:
In the order that the compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) label "The English Order, 1662," they drop the seventeenth century rubrics, or follow them in general terms, ostensibly "to take account of both greater congregational participation, and more flexibility in the use of spiritual songs and hymns." In their omission of a number of these rubrics they also drop key elements of the Biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. They omit the rubric that directs that the Minister deliver the Communion to the people into their hands, an ancient practice that was restored in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, which with Communion in both kinds, another ancient practice restored in the 1549 Prayer Book, was among the important reforms of the sixteenth century. The Medieval Catholic Church's suppression of these practices had contributed to the decidedly unscriptural evolution of the Eucharist from a Holy Communion into a sacrifice at which the elevation of the consecrated bread and wine for their adoration was the highpoint for the laity instead of the communion of the people. By the time of the English Reformation the laity was receiving Communion only in one kind, the bread, which was placed upon their tongues by the priest, and then outside the Mass once a year at Easter after private confession and absolution. With the revival of these ancient practices Archbishop Thomas Cranmer sought to restore the Eucharist as a Holy Communion and the frequent communion of the people. In the rubrics before the distribution of the Communion the 1662 Communion Service state "When he delivereth the bread, he shall say...;" but the so-called "The English Order, 1662" expunges this important avowal and substitutes for it, "The following words of administration are used."
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the rubric that prohibits a celebration of the Lord's Supper, except when there is sufficient number of people to communicate with the priest. They drop the rubric that requires that "the bread be such as is usual to be eaten" so as "take away all occasion of dissension and superstition, which any person might hath or might have concerning the bread and wine." They omit the rubric that prohibits any leftover consecrated bread and wine from being carried out of the church and require its consumption immediately after the blessing. They also drop the Declaration on Kneeling - the affirmation at the close of the 1662 Communion Service that in kneeling to receive Communion "no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very nature substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred by all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) add a rubric that permits the singing of the Agnes Dei during the distribution of the Communion. They also add rubrics that permit the reservation of Communion for the sick and the consumption of any leftover consecrated bread and wine either after the distribution of the Communion or at the end of the service.
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the 1662 Communion Service's provision for the consecration of additional bread and wine from the "The English Order, 1662."
Due to these omissions, additions, and alterations the theology of "The English Order, 1662" in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is not that of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and should be a source of great concern for Anglicans faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book. The theology of "The English Order, 1662" and the theology of the other two orders, as we shall see, should give them cause to think twice about using An Anglican Prayer Book (2008).
The American Order, 1928:
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) were not content to tinker with the theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This can be seen in a comparison of the Oblation in the Prayer of Consecration in the 1928 American Prayer Book and the Oblation in the Prayer of Consecration in so-called "The American Order, 1928."
The Oblation in Prayer of Consecration in the 1928 American Prayer Book reads as follows:
"O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same."
Now this Oblation is itself a departure from the theology given expression in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Books that preceded it. The anamnesis in the Canon in the 1549 Prayer Book, "the memorial which thy son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension" is "so worded as to avoid any reference to any offering or sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ or of the bread and wine of the people's oblation." [4] As previously noted the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books remove from the Prayer of Consecration any suggestion of a oblation or sacrifice other than the "full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world" that Christ made upon the cross, "by his one oblation once offered." They omit the anamnesis altogether, and reword and move the petition for the acceptance of "this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" and the offering of "our self, our souls, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee" to a position after the Communion, where they are combined with the petition that God accept the "bounden duty and service" of those present and made an alternative to a slightly revised version of the 1549 Prayer of Thanksgiving. This Prayer of Thanksgiving also serves as a second Prayer of Oblation.
The 1928 American Prayer of Consecration, on the other hand, contains an offering of the bread and wine with which those present will be making and celebrating in God's presence the memorial that Christ has commanded them to make. The language of the oblation in the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration parallels that of the oblation in the Roman Canon. With the exception of one clause, "the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make," the words of the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration are essentially the words of the Roman Canon. The 1928 American Prayer of Consecration substitutes this clause for "an immaculate sacrifice, a holy sacrifice, an immaculate sacrifice, or host, the holy bread of eternal life, and, the cup of perpetual salvation" of the Roman Canon.
Since the 1928 American Order for the Holy Communion, like the Medieval Sarum Mass, has an offering of the bread and wine before they are laid on the Table after the Offertory, this second offering represents something more than the offering of the bread and wine for holy use, for this offering has already taken place. If the epiclesis is regarded as the moment of consecration, it is one step short of the offering of the consecrated elements, a usage connected to the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass.
The Oblation in the Prayer of Consecration in "The American Order, 1928" in An Anglican Prayer (2008) takes that short step:
"And so, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of your dearly loved Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, we, your humble servants, do celebrate and make before your Divine Majesty, which we now offer to you, the memorial your Son has commanded us to make; and, as we do so, we remember his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; and we offer to you most sincere thanks for the benefits without number, procured for us by the same."
In offering the memorial itself to God instead of the bread and wine with which those present will celebrate and make the memorial, the priest in "The American Order, 1928" is also offering the consecrated bread and wine to God. The memorial consist of taking bread and wine, giving thanks, breaking the bread and giving the bread and the cup with the Dominical Words of Institution. The bread and wine of the memorial is the bread and wine that has been set apart for holy use. This offering of the consecrated bread and wine in the memorial is open to a variety of interpretations, including the interpretation that what is being offered is a proprietary sacrifice as in the Medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass.
Even the second offering of the bread and wine in the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration is open to this interpretation. In the tradition of the Western Church Christ the word of God is regarded as consecrating through the repetition of his words in the Institutional Narrative. The oblation of the bread and wine in the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration follows the Words of Institution. In the course of the Words of Institution the priest breaks the bread. From this perspective the bread and wine that the priest is offering is consecrated, set apart for holy use.
Archbishop Thomas Cranmer appears to have recognized that the offering of the bread and wine after the recitation of the words of the Institutional Narrative admits an interpretation as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead as he omitted that offering from the 1549 Canon. Archbishop Cranmer not only omitted the offering of the bread and wine after the Words of Institution in the 1549 Canon, but he also omitted another usage from the Medieval Sarum Mass-the offering of the bread and wine after the Offertory, in which the priest offers the bread and wine to God in readiness for its use in the sacrifice of the Mass before laying the unconsecrated elements upon the Table. The offering of the bread and wine after the Offertory and after the Words of Institution in the Canon have strong associations with the Medieval doctrines of Transubstantiation and of the sacrifice of the Mass.
Cranmer and the English Reformers rejected the doctrine of Transubstantiation as contrary to the teaching of Christ, to reason, to the evidence of the senses, and to "the faith and doctrine of the old authors of Christ's church." [5] They were also uncompromising in its repudiation of the sacrifice of the Mass, a doctrine "indissolubly connected with the theory of transubstantiation", out of the conviction that "it is dishonoring to Christ and incompatible with the New Testament doctrine of salvation". [6] Classical Anglicanism also puts aside these doctrines as not to be accepted, practiced, or believed. Article 28 declares that Transubstantiation "cannot be proved by Holy Scripture but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given rise to many superstitions." Article 31 further declares, "the sacrifices of masses, in which it is commonly said that the priest offers Christ for the living and the dead, to obtain the remission of their punishment or guilt, are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." [7]
In compiling the First Prayer Book of 1549 Cranmer sought to remove all suggestions of an oblation or sacrifice from the Communion Service. The offertory sentences have no Eucharistic reference. The preparation of the bread and wine takes place without any ceremony. [8]
The 1928 American Order for the Holy Communion restores both usages from the Medieval Sarum Mass. This represents a significant departure from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1604 Prayer Books that preceded it.
A modified doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice has gained some currency among Anglicans and Episcopalians. This doctrine, while it rejects the Roman view which associates a sacrifice or oblation in the Eucharist with Christ's death, seek to connect such a sacrifice or oblation with the heavenly priesthood of our Lord. This notion of Eucharistic sacrifice is defined in a number of ways:
"Some have spoken of the suffering of Christ as a temporal revelation and reflection of something that ever continues in the presence of God. Some have spoken of the risen life that Christ now lives, and the intercession that he now makes, as having the character of sacrificial self-offering. Some...have spoken of Christ always standing before God's throne, presenting, offering, or pleading his earthly sacrifice. Then the church's sacrifice is explained in terms of pleading Christ's death for the remission of our own and others' sins as we offer all that we are and have to God. This pleading is said to be a 're-presenting' (not a symbolizing, but a fresh offering or a 'making present again') of Christ's sacrifice to the Father in union with Christ himself as he re-presents it; and the church's corporate self-offering in Christ, within which our re-presenting of Calvary finds its place, is seen as the main purpose of, and the central action in the eucharistic liturgy." [9]
In this view of Eucharistic sacrifice "the sacrifice of Christ is more than his once-for-all death on Calvary, and in some sense continues into the present; and "the church's union with Christ is such that Christians are incorporated, not merely into his death and resurrection, but into his present sacrificing activity as well." [10] What happens in the Eucharist is not a repetition of Christ's sacrifice, nor an addition to it, but it is more than a commemoration of that sacrifice. It is a participation in it. [11]
As W. H. Griffith Thomas points to our attention in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, those who teach this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice wrongly associate the Holy Communion with Christ in heaven, for everything in the Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer associates the Lord's Supper with the death of Christ and not with his life in heaven. [12]
He lists five considerations that we should weigh in the study of this view. First, no trace of any such idea can be found in Ante-Nicene history. Second, nothing in the New Testament provides a Scriptural basis for the belief that Christ is presenting before God the sacrifice once offered on the Cross. Neither the New Testament nor the 1662 Prayer Book teach such a doctrine. Third, no sacrifice is associated with our Lord in heaven either in the New Testament or the 1662 Prayer Book. Fourth, in a sacrament the movement is from God to man. In a sacrifice it is from man to God. This is a major difference between a sacrament and a sacrifice. Fifth, the idea of our Lord offering or pleading in heaven is not found anywhere in Scripture. [13]
As Griffith Thomas further points to our attention in his discussion of the Lord's Supper in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, when Christ says, "do this in remembrance of me," touto poieō, "do this," does not mean "offer this." He writes:
"The force of the present tense in the Greek is 'Do this again and again,' i.e.. 'perform this action." [14]
Anamnēsis, "remembrance," he stresses, in the Greek "means an act of the mind recalling and never an objective memorial." He goes on to write:
"The two Greek words for "remembrance" and "memorial" are never identical, but always carefully distinguished." [15]
He further points to our attention that the indirect object of the verb kataggellō,"proclaim," in 1 Corinthians 11:26 is "always man, never God. It cannot possibly mean 'exhibit before God.'" [16]
In his discussion of the idea of Eucharistic sacrifice in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles he reiterates that touto poieō, "do this," in the Institutional Narratives cannot be rendered as "offer this," anamnēsis, "remembrance" as a "memorial before God," and kataggellō, "proclaim" with God, and not man, as the object. [17]
He goes on to point to our attention that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer follows the New Testament and has three sacrifices only-the sacrifices of ourselves (Romans 12:1); our gifts (Hebrews 13:16); and our praises (Hebrews 13:15). The 1662 Prayer Book does not even have an oblation of the unconsecrated elements. [18]
He concludes:
"In the Lord's Supper Christ is neither offered to God, nor for man, but He is offered to man in all the efficacy of His atoning sacrifice, to be received by faith. It would be well if we could avoid ambiguous terms. Even such a phrase as 'commemorative sacrifice' is ambiguous, for strictly, it is not this, but the commemoration of a sacrifice. If, however, the words 'Eucharistic Sacrifice' means some sacrifice which is offered only in and at the Lord's Supper, it is clear that no such idea is found either in the Bible or in the Prayer Book." [19]
"Of a piece with" this view of Eucharistic sacrifice, to use the words of J.I. Packer, is what Packer describes as the "fancy" that the "remembrance," or anamnesis, of Christ in the Eucharist is directed to God, "as if Jesus' words 'do this in remembrance of me' had meant 'do this to remind my Father of me'. [20]
Packer draws to our attention that, while directly the Thirty Nine Articles say nothing about this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice, indirectly they say a lot. He goes on to identify a number of principles laid down in Articles 25-26 and 28-31, which this doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice appears to contravene. [21]
The first of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are "signs of the gospel, with their meaning fixed by the gospel." "The 'sacraments of the gospel,'" Packer reminds us, "are 'effectual signs of grace' by which God works to 'quicken...strengthen and confirm our faith in him' (Article 25)." "But to know what the gospel and grace and faith are," he stresses, "we have to look back to Articles 9-18, which the sacramental Articles presuppose." [22]
The second of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are "acts of God terminating on men."-"'signs...by the which (God) doth work in...in us (Article 25)." Packer makes the same point as W. H. Griffith Thomas, that in a sacrament the movement is from God to us. God is the chief agent and his work is the chief action. [23]
The third of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion "proclaim God's work for and in man." Packer writes:
"Baptism is 'a sign of regeneration, or new birth' (Article 27) through union with Christ in his death and resurrection; the Lord's Supper is 'a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death', in which those united to Christ by faith partake of his body and blood (Article 28). Thus both sacraments exhibit Christ's atoning achievements and benefits which flow from it to us here and now." [24]
The fourth of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion "are means by which God works faith." The Thirty Nine Articles tell us the gospel sacraments are means of grace and "convey the blessings that signify...to those who receive them 'worthily'-'rightly, worthily, and with faith' (Article 25, 28)". Packer goes on to note:
"Right reception is believing reception. 'The mean(s) whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten is faith' (Article 28)." [25]
He further notes:
"And the sacraments, in their character as visible words and acted promises, are God's instrument to 'not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him' (Article 25). They function as means of grace precisely because God makes them means to faith. The essential sacramental action is his coming to us sinners to call forth our faith through the sign and through that faith to impart to us the benefits of Jesus' death." [26]
"Believing and receiving," Packer tells us, "are the essence of sacramental worship." "Those who have received sacraments should indeed give themselves to God, but such self-giving is a response to the grace made known in the sacrament and not strictly part of the sacrament itself. That is the view clearly expressed in the 1662 Communion office." [27]
The modified doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice that has been circulating among Anglicans and Episcopalians conflicts with all four of these principles. It is not determined by the gospel as the gospel is presented in the New Testament. This view of Eucharistic sacrifice, Packer draws to our attention, "insists that Christ's sacrifice continues in heaven, whereas Scripture equates his sacrifice with his death and proclaims his work of offering as finished. Also this doctrine labours to assimilate our self-offering to his, where as Scripture does the opposite, stressing the uniqueness of Christ's vicarious sacrificial death and keeping it distinct from the sacrifice of praise and service that is our response to it. These emphases were not learned from the biblical gospel." [28]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "turns the Lord's Supper into an act of man terminating on God." Packer further draws to our attention:
"The essential action ceases to be God's sacramental offering of Christ to men, and becomes our sacrificial offering of ourselves with Christ to God. But this is to embrace an unbiblical fantasy about the re-presenting of Calvary and to treat our response to the sacrament as if it were the sacrament itself." [29]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "makes the Lord's Supper a symbolizing not of Christ's sacrifice so much as of ours." Packer notes:
"The service turns into a showing forth primarily of the church's devotion, and of the Lord's death only incidentally. But this impoverishes sacramental worship, not enriches it." [30]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "minimizes the function of the Lord's Supper as a means of grace." "On this view, the church comes to the eucharist to give rather than to get;" Packer further notes, "not primarily to receive, but to offer itself in thanksgiving for what it has received already. This cuts across the view of the Articles, that the Lord's Supper is first and foremost a means for God to strengthen faith and to communicate to believing hearts the fruits of Calvary." [31]
Packer concludes that, now five centuries ago, the Thirty-Nine Articles anticipated this doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and "ruled it out as misshapen." He writes:
"To any currently attracted by it they suggest a question: is it not a poor thing compared with that which it seeks to supplant? Ultimately, of course, that question must be answered by Scripture, but surely it is the right question for us to face in this matter, and surely the Articles do us a service by pointing it up for us." [32]
The preceding discussion of the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice both in its Medieval and more recent forms and its incompatibility with the proposed and agreed standards for faith and worship of the Anglican Mission-the Bible, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer-is relevant not only to "The American Order, 1928" but also to the so-called "The Canadian Order, 1962," as we shall see below. But before we go on to that order, let us first complete our examination of the American order.
"The American Order, 1928" places the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access before the distribution of the Communion, as in the Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1928 American Prayer Book, and permits the people to join the priest in the Prayer of Humble Access. The positioning of the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access before the distribution and the singing or recitation of the Benedictus before the distribution and the signing of the Agnes Dei during the distribution can and have been interpreted to teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation. In Episcopal churches where this doctrine has been maintained and taught, the permission to sing a hymn before the distribution in the 1928 American Order for the Lord's Supper has been used to sing the Agnus Dei before the distribution in imitation of the Medieval Sarum Mass.
The rubrics for the distribution of the Communion in "The American Order, 1928" are identical to those for the distribution of the Communion in the so-called "The English Order, 1662." The significance of these changes is discussed in the section titled "The English Order, 1662" above. The discussion of the general rubrics at the end of the Communion Service in that section is also applicable, including the discussion concerning the Declaration on Kneeling which was omitted from the 1928 American Prayer Book and its predecessors.
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the 1928 American Communion Service's provision for the consecration of additional bread and wine from "The American Order, 1928."
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the disciplinary rubrics that are printed before the 1662 Communion Service and after the 1928 American and 1962 Canadian Communion Services. These rubrics permit the priest to bar from the Holy Communion anyone that he knows is living in grievous sin or those between whom he perceives malice and hatred to exist. One of the criticisms of Anglicanism in North America in recent years has been the lack of church discipline. The omission of these rubrics is surprising.
The Canadian Order, 1962:
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) in their theological tinkering did not spare "The Canadian Order, 1962". The 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration contains a petition, "And we pray that by the power of thy Holy Spirit, all we who are partakers of this holy Communion may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction." The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) have expanded the clause "by the power of your Holy Spirit" to "by the presence and power of your Holy Spirit," changing the meaning of the clause.
The compilers of the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book felt a need to define the means by which the partakers of the Holy Communion were filled with God's grace and heavenly benediction. A comparison of this petition with similar petitions in the Sarum Canon, the 1549 Canon, and the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration may suggest an explanation for this particular choice of wording. The petition in the Sarum Canon follows the consecration and offering of the bread and wine: "We most humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these things to be carried by the hand of Thy Holy Angel to Thy Altar on high, in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty, that as many as shall partake at this Altar of the most Sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son may be with all heavenly grace and blessing." The petition in the 1549 Canon follows the consecration of the bread and wine and the offering of "ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice unto thee." It asks God to grant that "...whosoever shall be partakers of this holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy son Jesus Christ: and be fulfilled with thy grace and benediction, and made one body with thy son Jesu Christ, that he may dwell in them, and they in him." The petition in the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration adopts the language of the 1549 Canon, and follows an offering of the bread and wine, an epiclesis, a petition for God's acceptance of the congregation's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and an offering of "ourselves, our souls and bodies" as "a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice" to God. Both the 1549 Canon and the 1928 American Prayer Book appear to take the view that God's grace and heavenly benediction are imparted by the bread and wine of the sacrament and those who worthily receive the sacrament will be filled with God's grace and heavenly benediction.
On the other hand, the petition in the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration follows the consecration of the bread and wine and the petition, "And we entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion...." The 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration contains no spoken offering of the bread and wine and no spoken offering of "ourselves, our souls and bodies" In praying that by the power of the Holy Spirit those who are partakers of the Holy Communion will be filled with God's grace and heavenly benediction, the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration appears to take the view that the Holy Spirit imparts God's grace and heavenly benediction to the communicants apart from the bread and wine but this imparting accompanies the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup. This same petition is also used in the 1958 West Indian Prayer of Consecration, suggesting that it can be given a different interpretation since that prayer is decidedly Anglo-Catholic in its view of the Eucharist.
The alteration of the clause, "by the power of the Holy Spirit," to "by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit," depending upon how one interprets the clause, appears to rule out the automatic operation of the sacrament. It does not appear to suggest that everyone who receives Communion will receive some benefit from it-only believers. According to the teaching of the Bible, the Holy Spirit is present in people and not in inanimate objects, and then the Holy Spirit is only present in those who believe in Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Bible do we find anything that approximates the belief of the ancient Egyptians that their gods and goddesses inhabited their idols or the belief of African animists that spirits inhabit their fetishes and the associated belief that gods, goddesses, and spirits can inhabit animals or foodstuffs. In such a view the bread and wine of the Communion could confer a blessing upon even those who have no faith. This change appears to move the doctrine of "The Canadian Order, 1962", at least in this particular instant, closer to that of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
In regards to the idea of a sacrifice or oblation in the Eucharist the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration and the Prayer of Consecration in "The Canadian Order, 1962" both express the desire that God "accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." They also juxtapose the words, "we thy humble servants, with all thy holy Church... do make before thee, in this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation, the memorial which he hath commanded..." or the contemporary English equivalent immediately before this petition so that "this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" refers to the memorial that Christ has commanded.
The words "the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation" used in the phrase "in this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation" in the 1962 Canadian Prayer of Consecration and the Prayer of Consecration of "The Canadian Order, 1962" are adapted from words used in the offering of the consecrated bread and wine in the Medieval Sarum Canon: "O Lord, we Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, being mindful of the Blessed Passion of this Christ Thy Son, our Lord and God; and of His Resurrection from the dead, and of His glorious Ascension into heaven, offer unto Thy most excellent Majesty of Thy gifts bestowed upon us a pure Host, an Holy Host, a Host immaculate, the Holy Bread of Eternal life, and the Chalice of Everlasting salvation."
The same words are used in the anamnesis-oblation of the 1954 South African Prayer of Consecration: "Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants, having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, do render unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same; and, looking for his coming again with power and great glory, we offer here unto thy divine majesty this holy Bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation..." While the anamnesis-oblation precede the epiclesis, it is itself preceded by the petition "Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we, receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood" and the Words of Institution. From the standpoint of the Western Church and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer the bread and wine offered in the anamnesis-oblation of the 1954 South African Prayer of Consecration are consecrated.
The words "holy Bread of eternal life and "Cup of everlasting salvation" are also used in the anamnesis-oblation of the 1959 West Indian Prayer of Consecration in which there can be no doubt as to whether the bread and wine that are offered are consecrated as the anamnesis-oblation follows the epiclesis and the Institutional Narrative: "Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy servants with all thy holy people, having in remembrance the blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension of thy beloved Son, do offer here unto thy Divine Majesty this holy Bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation, rendering thanks unto thee for the wonderful redemption which thou hast wrought for us in Him." The anamnesis-oblation in the 1959 West Indian prayer of Consecration is juxtaposed to the petition: "And we beseech thee, O Father, to accept upon thy heavenly altar this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his passion." "This our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" refers to "this holy Bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation."
The "sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation" of the anamnesis in the 1962 Canadian prayer of Consecration and the Prayer of Consecration of "The Canadian Order, 1962" also refers to the consecrated bread and wine since both prayers adopt the consecratory form of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the anamnesis follows the consecration. The memorial that the two prayers desire God to accept as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is the offering of the consecrated bread and wine. While these prayers do not have a straightforward spoken offering of the consecrated bread and wine, they do have an offering of the consecrated elements. When they speak of "this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation," they are really speaking of this offering of Christ's Body and Blood. The phrase "this sacrament of the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation" is simply a euphemistic way of saying the Body and Blood of Christ.
"The Canadian Order, 1962" places the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access before the distribution of the Communion, as in the Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, and permits the people to join the priest in the Prayer of Humble Access. The positioning of the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access before the distribution and the singing or recitation of the Benedictus before the distribution and the signing of the Agnes Dei during the distribution, as I have previously noted, can and have been interpreted to teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The permission in the 1962 Canadian Communion Office to sing hymns and anthems, including the Agnes Dei, in the Communion time has been used to replicate the devotions before the distribution in the Medieval Sarum Mass.
As in the case of the "The American Order, 1928", the rubrics for the distribution of the Communion in the so-called "The Canadian Order, 1962" are identical to those for the distribution of the Communion in the "The English Order, 1662." The significance of these changes is discussed in the section titled "The English Order, 1662" above. The discussion of the general rubrics at the end of the Communion Service in that section is also applicable, including the discussion concerning the Declaration on Kneeling which was omitted from the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.
None of the three orders, the English, the American, or the Canadian, makes provision for any posture in which the communicants might receive Communion other than kneeling. Anglicans have knelt to receive Communion from the Second Prayer Book of Common Prayer of 1552 on. (The First Prayer Book of 1549 is silent on the matter.) Kneeling to receive the Bread and the Cup embodies the sacramental theology given expression in the 1552, 1559, and 1662 Prayer Books in which the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is conceived in terms of God's action toward us. God is the giver and we are the receivers. Consequently, kneeling can be regarded as the preferred posture for receiving Communion.
At the same time the New Testament does not prescribe a posture in which the communicants should receive Communion. In the Old Testament those who observe the first Passover are instructed to stand with their staff in their hand. The disciples are described as reclining at the Last Supper. Kneeling, standing, and sitting to receive Communion are all agreeable to Scripture.
Standing to receive Communion is a much older custom than kneeling. It was the practice of the early Church. The custom of kneeling to receive Communion originated in the Middle Ages.
Under some circumstances communicants may not be able to kneel to receive Communion. For a number of years my grandmother was prevented from receiving Communion because she had arthritis and was not able to kneel. Only after the 1979 Book of Common Prayer was adopted with its provision permitting standing as well as kneeling to receive Communion was she able to share the Lord's Supper again. An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) would greatly benefit from a provision that, when circumstances require it, permits communicants to stand to receive the Communion at the Lord's Table or to remain in their seats and receive Communion where they are seated.
The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) omit the 1962 Canadian Communion Service's provision for the consecration of additional bread and wine from the "The Canadian Order, 1962."
Both the Prayer of Consecration in the "The Canadian Order, 1962" and the Post-Communion Collect in that order have a petition asking God to fill the partakers of the Holy Communion with his grace and heavenly benediction. The Order for the Lord's Supper in the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book has only one such petition-in the Prayer of Consecration. Apparently the compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) did not consider one petition to be adequate enough and added a second petition. Perhaps they believe that Canadian Anglicans need twice as much of God's grace and heavenly benediction than do other Anglicans and Episcopalians in North America. Or they cut and pasted a part of the text from the first Post-Communion Collect in "The English Order, 1662" and neglected to delete the words "Fill us all who share in this Holy Communion with your grace and heavenly benediction" from it. This suggests carelessness, a lack of familiarity with the 1962 Canadian Liturgy, or hastiness in publishing An Anglican Prayer Book (2008).
The Dismissal:
In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the 1928 American Prayer Book, and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book the Blessing, "The peace of God which passeth all understanding...," serves as the dismissal of the people. The rubrics in all three Prayer Books state that after the Gloria in Excelsis "the Priest (or the Bishop if he be present) shall let them depart with this Blessing." The text of the foregoing Blessing follows the rubric. A hymn or organ voluntary may follow during which the ministers go out. But this hymn or voluntary is not really a part of the service. In the time of Elizabeth I permission was given to sing a metrical psalm before and after the sermon and before and after the service, and it subsequently became customary to sing a hymn after the service. The rubrics of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) direct the minister to conclude the service with a contemporary English version of the foregoing Blessing in each of the orders, English, American, and Canadian.
Appended to the three orders, however, is a section labeled "For the ending of all three Orders." This section contains a rubric authorizing the singing of a recessional hymn and the use of a concluding prayer by the Minister. Printed below this rubric are two contemporary English versions of Collects that in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer are used to conclude the service when there is no Communion. This rubric formalizes what is regarded in the literature as a bad liturgical practice, that of saying a string of devotions and prayers after the conclusion of the service. The people have been dismissed with a Blessing. The Mass is ended!
As soon as the ministers have gone out, it is time for the people to depart-after they have, of course, finished the hymn if a hymn is sung. If a voluntary is played, they may leave during the voluntary. Having offered God their praise and service, the time has come for them to go back into the world; to "show forth" God's praise, not only with their lips, but in their lives; and to serve God in the world. After the Blessing is the ideal place for a rousing mission hymn or stirring voluntary to help send the people forth into the world.
If a concluding prayer is desired, a better place for it is before the parting Blessing. The 1926 Irish Prayer Book makes provision for the use of a Prayer for Mission or other suitable collect before the Blessing or after the Collect of the Day. The compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) would have done better to incorporate this provision into An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) than to give legal form to an undesirable practice. It might be customary in some churches but it is a custom that has been allowed to grow up when it ought to have been discouraged.
Conclusion:
When measured by the proposed and agreed standards for faith and worship of the Anglican Mission the Ministry of the Sacrament of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) comes up short. As the foregoing discussion of Eucharistic sacrifice shows, An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) gives expression to theology that is not Scriptural and which conflicts with principles found in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Some of the textual material and its arrangement in the three orders in the Ministry of the Sacrament is open to the interpretation that it teaches the doctrine of Transubstantiation, a doctrine that classical Anglicanism rejects. While An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) may be based to some extent upon the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the theology of the two other Prayer Books upon which it is based, and the theology of the compilers of An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) obscure and overshadow whatever Biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Prayer Book is incorporated into the book.
Peter Toon described An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) in an email to this writer as the work of "special group of men" at "a special time in history" intended to "create a bridge" for those who have been using the 1979 Book of Common Prayer to what he described as "genuine Anglican doctrine and experience," and therefore in his opinion should not be subjected to what he characterized as "private judgment." But the Anglican doctrine and experience to which An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) seeks to create a bridge is not that of classical Anglicanism - of the English Reformation, the Elizabethan Settlement, and the reign of James I. It is the doctrine and experience of a later theological stream in Anglicanism, a theological stream that diverges in a number of significant ways from classical Anglicanism. In a sense An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) seeks to move those who are using the 1979 Prayer Book from what may be viewed as one divergent tradition to another. It fails to acknowledge that the theological stream that it would have users of the 1979 Prayer Book embrace helped to pave the way, for example, in its emphasis upon the authority of the Church rather than the authority of Scripture, for the emergence of the divergent tradition of which the 1979 Prayer Book is a part.
The Book of Common Prayer with the Bible occupies such a central place in the faith and worship of Anglican Christians that any revision of the Prayer Book, as in the case of any new translation of the Bible, must always be the subject of close public scrutiny.
The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 was a compromise between High Churchmen and those who held to a more Reformed theology. Those of more pronounced views on either side were, it must be admitted, not happy with it. However, the 1662 Prayer Book has served the Church of England well for more than 300 years. The 1662 Book is the most widely used service book in the Anglican Communion to this day. With the Holy Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Thirty-Nine Articles it is one of the standards for faith and worship of the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Australia, and a number of other Anglican provinces. It has nourished the faith of generations of biblically faithful Anglicans, well as ordered their worship.
An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) sets aside that compromise. While An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) is, in some ways, itself a compromise of sorts, too much, from a doctrinal standpoint, is given away for the little that is received in return. It is a compromise, if it can be really called that, which is made largely at the expense of the Biblical-Reformation theology of classical Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This suggests that the latter were not adequately or effectively represented in the process of compiling the book. In setting aside that compromise, An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) puts itself at odds with the very standards for faith and worship that the Anglican Mission has proposed for its member churches and to which it has agreed.
Biblically faithful Christians desiring services in contemporary English, which adhere to the Biblical-Reformation theology of classical Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Prayer Book are well advised to look elsewhere.
Endnotes:
[1] Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England From Cranmer to Hooker 1534-1603, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1970, p. 206
[2] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing 2007, p. 82
[3] Henry Broxap, "Appendix II: Non-Juror Doctrines and Ceremonies," The Later Non-Jurors, Cambridge 1928, pp. 1-3-electronic edition, Project Canterbury 2002
[4] Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England From Cranmer to Hooker 1534-1603, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1970, p. 189
[5] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers, Abington, PA: Horseradish, 1997, pp. 185-186
[6] Ibid, p. 194
[7] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Restatement of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, The Church of England in South Africa, 1988
[8] Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England From Cranmer to Hooker 1534-1603, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1970, p. 188
[9] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing 2007, pp. 81-82
[10] Ibid., p. 81
[11] Ibid., p. 81
[12] W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Theological Seminary 1996, p. 424
[13] Ibid., pp. 424-425
[14] Ibid., p. 392
[15] Ibid., p. 392
[16] Ibid., p. 392
[17] Ibid., p. 424
[18] Ibid., p. 425
[19] Ibid., p. 426
[20] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing 2007, p. 82
[21] Ibid., p. 82
[22] Ibid., p. 83
[23] Ibid., p. 83
[24] Ibid., p. 83
[25] Ibid., pp. 83-84
[26] Ibid., pp. 84
[27] Ibid., p. 84
[28] Ibid., p. 84
[29] Ibid., pp. 84-85
[30] Ibid., p. 85
[31] Ibid., p. 85
[32] Ibid., p. 85