By Robin G. Jordan
If North American Anglicans do not need a new Oxford Movement, what then do they need? This is a very important question. It is a question to which we must give careful thought. In this article I offer an answer to this question, which is the fruit of my own reflection.
North American Anglicans need to hear the gospel. To some this may sound like a no-brainer. But the fact is that many North American Anglicans have not heard the gospel. They may have heard a gospel. Or they may have heard a part of the gospel or a watered-down version of the gospel. However, they have not heard the full gospel as it is found in the New Testament.
”But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’” (Romans 10:14-16 ESV)
As the apostle Paul went on to write the church at Rome, “…faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17 KJV)
We not only need to hear the gospel to believe in Christ but also to receive the Holy Spirit. We do not receive the Holy Spirit by works of the law but by hearing through faith (Galatians 3:2,5). To receive is to take the proffered thing into our hands or possession. When we receive the Holy Spirit, we make room for the Holy Spirit in our lives. We provide accommodation for the Holy Spirit so to speak. We choose to serve as a receptacle of the Spirit. But we do not do this by our own natural strength. We are able to do so because God has already begun to work in us (Philippians 1:6). It is God who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). We have no power of our own to do anything pleasing or acceptable to God unless God first gives us the grace through Christ, enabling us to have a good will, and the grace of God continues at work within us to maintain that good will.
.jpg)
One of the reasons that Christians do not experience the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives is that when they welcome him into their lives, they confine him to the front room. They do not open their whole life to him, especially the dark corners. God does not force his Holy Spirit upon us. He does not invade us like an evil spirit and take possession of us against our will. He gently prods and quietly encourages us to make more room for his presence in us, to open the doors to those parts of our lives that we are keeping closed to him. He gives us the grace to have the good will to open these doors and to yield these areas of our lives to him until he wholly reigns over our lives. We truly enter God’s kingdom when God is the complete ruler of our hearts.
North American Anglicans need to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As I type these words, I can hear someone groaning, ”Why do evangelicals always bring up the need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?” We cannot relate to Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Lord if he is a remote figure in ancient Palestine. He must be a very Real Person to us, alive today as he was alive then. We may not see or touch him but he must be very much present in the here and now.
Our relationship with Christ must be personal. It cannot be our relationship of our forebears or parents. It cannot be the relationship of the Church. It cannot be the relationship of a confessor, pastor, priest, or spiritual director. It must be our own. We must personally for ourselves accept Christ as our Saviour. We must likewise accept him as our Lord. We must confess with our own mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our own heart that God raised him from the dead in order to be saved (Romans 10:9). No one else can do this for us.
It is as the apostle Paul wrote. A man may be circumcised as an infant and bear the mark of the Old Covenant but unless he is one inwardly and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit and not by the letter, he is no Jew (Romans 2:29). We may have been baptized in infancy, recognized as children of the New Covenant, and admitted to the visible Church but until we ourselves turn from sin, turn to Christ, accept his offer of salvation, and follow him as his disciple, we are not Christians. A couple may be betrothed, bind themselves with a promise to marry. They may announce their engagement and buy an engagement ring. But until they stand before a minister and exchange their vows, the minister offers prayer and blesses them, and they consummate their marriage, they are not husband and wife. We may have inherited our great aunt’s house. The lawyer may have given us the deed to the property and the key to the house. But until we have occupied the house, turned on the electricity, gas, and water, and made it our home, we have not come into our inheritance. All we have is a deed and a key.
When we have a personal relationship with someone else, we take him into our confidence. We share with him our ups and downs. We tell him our darkest secrets. He is our closest friend and constant companion.
At the same time we must also let him do his share of the talking and listen attentively to what he says. If someone is a very good friend—not just in our estimation but also in truth—and we trust him, we will also take to heart what he says.
Jesus has promised to those who open their lives to him, he will have intimate fellowship with them, and they with him:
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20 ESV)
While Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father’s throne, he also makes himself present to us in a very real way by the power of the Holy Spirit. Catholic theologians talk about Christ’s real presence under the forms of bread and wine on the altar at Mass. But Christ is really present to us every day. His presence is not imagined. It is real albeit it is spiritual. The Spirit of Christ is present to our spirit. Indeed through the indwelling Holy Spirit Jesus also dwells in our heart, our innermost being.
An analogy that I find helpful is the difference between appearing before a king in his throne room, surrounded by his court, and meeting with him alone in his presence-chamber. A presence-chamber is the reception room of a great person where he meets privately with petitioners and others who have business with him. This analogy may not work well for Americans who have no monarch and therefore they cannot relate to the experience. But does apply to how Christ relates us but with a very important difference. Christ does not just invite us to his presence-chamber. He makes his presence-chamber in us! We can take counsel with Christ as we would with the closest of our friends and intimates.
In the High Priestly Prayer Jesus asks that the Father give eternal life to all that the Father has given him:
“And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3-4 ESV)
In the Greek the kind of knowing to which Jesus is referring is used to describe the intimate relationship between husband and wife.
The relationship that we enjoy with Christ in this life is a relationship that continues beyond death. It is eternal.
To a number of Catholics it comes as a surprise that they can meet with Christ in the presence-chamber of their heart. They have been taught that they need the Blessed Virgin Mary and other intermediaries to approach Christ in the throne room on their behalf. Christ has been presented to them as not a particularly approachable figure, certainly not someone with whom they can enjoy a personal relationship. They have also been taught that they need priests by whatever mystical powers they are supposed to have been given at their ordination through the laying-on-of-the bishop’s hands to make Christ present for them under the forms of bread and wine.This presence is not particularly personal. It is more like the fire-berry that every morning a bird brings the retired star Ramandu from the valleys in the Sun in C. S. Lewis’ The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and by which a little of his age is taken away until he becomes as young as the child born yesterday, whereupon he can take his rising again and once more tread the great dance. [1]
How do we have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? The first step is to believe in him and to accept him as our Saviour and Lord. But that is only the beginning. Like any other relationship, our relationship with Christ will not grow if we do not make time for that relationship and invest in it. We can have no relationship with anyone, including Christ, if we do not seek his company or converse with him, if we do not make room for that person in our lives.
What comes from our relationship with Christ reveals what kind of relationship we have with him. If we say that we have a relationship with Christ but our life is unchanged, then our claim to have a relationship with Christ must be questioned. We may not be putting into our relationship with Christ what we should be—showing our love for Christ by obeying him and by loving others. Or we may really not have a relationship with Christ at all. As with any person with whom we have the relationship, we must trust Christ, and trusting Christ means heeding what he says. The extent of our relationship reveals the extent of our trust.
North American Anglicans not only need to be on intimate terms with Christ but also God’s Word written. God has given us the Holy Scriptures to guide us through this life and to enjoy a right relationship with him. They provide us with the only rule of life that we need. They set forth everything that is necessary for our salvation. They are a lantern to our feet and a light upon our path in the darkness of this world (Psalm 119:105). The unfolding of God’s Word gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130). It makes them wise (Psalm 19:7) In God’s light, we see light (Psalm 36:9).
Imagine being in a room in pitch darkness. We cannot even see our hands before our face not matter how closely we hold them to our eyes. Then someone puts a book into our hands. We open the book and light shine from its pages, illuminating the room around us. From this book we learn how we can get to a room filled with the light of God’s presence and enjoy being in that light for all eternity. We also read how we can also find ourselves in another room for all eternity, one even darker than this one and filled with things from our worst nightmares and worse, things beyond our imagining. God has given us such a book and that book is the Bible.
In an earlier time we might have described the Holy Scriptures as a map and a compass to help the traveler find the right path and to stay on it. Today we might describe it as God’s geographic positioning system (GPS) for those on life’s highway.
In the Holy Scriptures God makes known that part of his will that he has chosen to reveal to us. He does not reveal all of his will but he does reveal all of his will that we need to know.
In reading and study the Bible, in memorizing passages from the Bible, in mediating upon passages of Scripture, we nourish our souls. In immersing ourselves in the Scriptures, God’s Word becomes a part of us. Through God’s Word the Holy Spirit renews our minds (Romans 12:2). We become “skilled in the word of righteousness” (Hebrews 5:13), and we learn to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Our powers of discernment are trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil (Hebrews 5:14). The mind of Christ is formed in us.
North American Anglicans need to live a life of repentance, godliness, and holiness. What we say and do most be consistent with each other.
”This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” (1 John 1:5-6 ESV)
If we are going to claim knowledge of God, then our lives must reflect that we do indeed know him:
”Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:4-5 ESV)
We may not see through our hypocrisy but others do, in particular those who are not Christians and those who are unchurched. They may already have a preconception of Christians as being hypocrites. We reinforce that preconception.
Our conduct, and our conversation should clearly show who is the Lord of our life:
“By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” (1 John 2:5-6 ESV)
Our manner of life should be worthy of the gospel of Christ (Philippians 1:27).
[5] North American Anglicans need to feel a deep concern for the souls of others and to act upon what they feel. They need to become missionaries wherever God has placed them. They need to invest in relationships with the lost in their lives and to be not only the messengers of God’s grace, of his favour and goodwill, but the message too. They need to develop their skills at building relationships, listening to others, encouraging them, and, when the time is right, drawing them into spiritual conversations and eventually sharing with them the good news of Jesus Christ. This requires learning to find what Sjogren, Ping, and Pollock call an individual’s “spiritual address.”
“Every human being of planet Earth has a unique address in relationship to the kingdom of God. Some are very close; others are much further from faith in Christ. In passages such as Mark 12:34 and Matthew 15:8, Jesus refers to people’s spiritual addresses, saying that someone is ‘not far’ from the kingdom or that others’ ‘hearts are far from me.’
The concept of a spiritual address is crucial to all of us who want Christ’s messages to reach and change people’s hearts. Why? Because messages that are brilliantly effective for those close to faith will quite often alienate and repel those who are far from it. In evangelism, as in most things, one size does not fit all.” [2]
North American Anglicans need to learn to love the lost and to show them God’s love even though they may at a particular time not be ready to accept Christ. They need to be mindful that for many people they may be the only Christ that these people may ever know.
Being a witness to Christ is a tremendous responsibility. Our lives must attest to the truth of our words. They must give testimony that knowing Christ, having a intimate personal relationship with him, does indeed make a difference, that Christ is all that we say that he is. Anglo-Catholic theologians are mistaken in their description of the priest at the altar as an icon of Christ. It is the people of Christ in their daily lives who are the true icons of Christ, the windows through which the lost see Christ.
North American Anglicans need to have more than a passing acquaintanceship with the historical Church of England formularies and the received interpretation of these formularies. The historical Church of England formularies are important statements of what Anglicans believe. They are standards of faith and practice for Anglicans, authoritative solely on the basis that they are agreeable to Scripture.
James Packer has written about the place and use of the Thirty-Nine Articles today. He acknowledges that he is an enthusiast for the Articles:
“Coming from a time when the most basic question in Christianity, namely the terms of the gospel itself, was being fought out with scholarship and passion, they centre on the fundamentals and define the gospel in a way that by biblical standards must be judge classic. They are thus abidingly relevant, and never more so than in a day like ours, when by reason of unsettlement resulting from what I think are unsound approaches to the Bible, the churches of the Reformation have lost their certainty about this classic definition.”[3]
Packer goes on to admit that he is casting the Articles in a rescuer’s role:
“The deepest reason for producing them, over and above the short-term political gains of doing so, was to provide for the future the Anglican answer to the question, what is the gospel? Constitutionally, the Articles still do this. Since by biblical standards they answer thquestion correctly, and since the greater body of Anglicans have drifted away from the answer, much to their loss, my enthusiasm will I hope be pardoned, however unfashionable it might seem. I cannot really think of any healthier course of study for Anglicans generally in these days than to analyze and assimilate the Christian message as the Articles define, display, and delimit it.” [4]
In Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group examine the place of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. They point to our attention that the 1662 Prayer Book has been the standard liturgical resource for Anglicans since its adoption. It has been translated into many languages and adapted to different circumstances. The orders of services that are found in the 1662 Prayer Book provide an important and distinct approach to Anglican sacramental and liturgical life, as do Archbishop Cranmer’s Prefaces. [5]
They make note of the fact that the 1662 Prayer Book, unlike more recent liturgies, keeps a focus on scripture, repentance, forgiveness, thanksgiving, and praise.
The 1662 Book of Common Prayer remains a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, because the principles it embodies are fundamentally theological and biblical. The liturgies of this book enable all who participate to think in true and biblical ways about God and about their life as his people.”[6]
They stress:
“Cranmer’s genius lay in preserving those elements of earlier orders of service which communicated gospel truth, and then expressed them in the vernacular language of the day…His prefaces provide principles for continued liturgical revision, so that in every age gospel truth may be conveyed and celebrated without confusion…The 1662 Prayer Book provides a standard by which other liturgies may be tested and measured….The further removed a proposed liturgy may be from the 1662 Prayer Book, the more important it is that it should be subject to widespread evaluation throughout the Communion.” [7]
In relation to the Anglican Ordinal, which has been bound within The Book of Common Prayer since 1552, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group make this very important point:
“Ordained ministers are always and only ministers of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. This gospel is entrusted to them (1 Timothy 1:12-14), and they are accountable to the Lord for their faithfulness to it.” [8]
North American Anglicans need to have fellowship with other Christian men and women in a local expression of the Body of Christ. The local church is not the diocese, district, presbytery, or other judicatory. It is a congregation of faithful men and women—a gathering of believing Christians—in which the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion, are ministered with due order and discipline as ordained by Christ. While all believing Christians in all places and all times are linked by the Holy Spirit to Jesus Christ their head and into the invisible Church of Christ, the local church is a particular visible expression of Christ’s Body in a particular place and a particular time. It may serve a particular community or it may be targeted at a particular segment of the population, a particular subculture in the culture, or a particular affinity group, for example a Hispanic church, a church for “Cultural Creatives,” or a cowboy church.
Fellowship is more than socializing with like-minded people. It involves sharing our hopes, our dreams, our troubles, our disappointments, and our burdens with other Christians. It means disclosing ourselves, being vulnerable, not wearing a mask or trying to control how others perceive us. It means being seen as God sees us.
Fellowship entails confessing our sins to each other, and holding each other accountable not only for what we say and do but also what we think and feel. It especially means loving each other as Christ loved us. Unlike Cain, we are our brother and our sister’s keeper. The love that Christians bear for one another is not a love that would wink at a brother or sister jeopardizing his or her soul.
In Proverbs 27:17 we read, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” It is primarily in the local church in which this sharpening—the conversations through which Christians make one another wiser and better—takes place. New Christians are instructed in the Christian faith and mentored in the Christian way of life. For good or for evil each Christian set an example for his fellow Christians. In the large membership or mega church the sharpening takes place in the smaller ecclesia of the small group meeting in homes, offices, and other venues. In the small membership church it may occurs in the congregation itself, depending upon the size of the church.
The manifestations of the Holy Spirit, what are called spiritual gifts, are given not to the individual Christian but to the Body of Christ in its local expression for the upbuilding of that Body. Where a particular gift such as “tongues,” or a personal prayer language is given to an individual Christian, it is given to build up the faith of that Christian so that he can, in turn, use what other spiritual gifts or natural talents God has bestowed upon him to build up the faith of the local church. It does not make that Christian more spiritual than other Christians. On the contrary, as pastor of my acquaintanceship drew to my attention, such gifts are often bestowed upon those who are weak in faith. In his case he had struggled with alcoholism for years. This particular manifestation of the Holy Spirit in his life was not a mark of spiritual superiority but of his own weakness and of God’s compassion.
Over the years God has shown me that the individual Christian himself is God’s gift to the local Church, to the local expression of the Body of Christ. We ourselves may not always see how a particular individual is a gift. He or she may not to our way of thinking have the appearance of a gift. However, God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8). In time God may reveal to us how such individual is a gift and to our amazement the gift God has given us is a precious one indeed. He has given us one of the least of his children to whom in ministering we are ministering to Christ.
North American Anglicans need to study the history of the Christian Church especially those periods that are key to understanding the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of Anglicanism. If they are not acquainted with a particular historical period, its major events, the effects of these events, its leading figures, and their thinking, they cannot tell if a particular individual is promoting a myth or theory that is not grounded in historical fact. They may consequently be led to draw the wrong conclusions about Anglican beliefs, Anglican identity, Anglican practices, and a host of other important issues. A thorough knowledge of the historical context and the authors’ intent, for example, is essential to understanding the Church of England formularies.
North American Anglicans need to develop their ability to separate fact from opinion, to discern what is true from what is false, to tell apart sound logic from faulty or questionable logic, and to see through sophistry and subtle argument. They need to hone and sharpen their own judgment and not to rely upon the judgment of others. They need to learn to recognize what is truly scriptural, that is found in Scripture or may be proved by Scripture, from that which is not. The latter requires not only familiarity with Scripture but also the basic principles of Bible interpretation and common mistakes in such interpretation. It also requires a close acquaintance with the rules of logic and their application. We live in a post-Christian, post-logical world in which people make critical decisions upon experience, feelings, and intuition. Cognitive processes have changed. Millenials come to conclusions in a peculiar roundabout way while former generations were more linear and logical in their thinking. This makes them particularly susceptible to doctrines and practices that are strange, erroneous and disagreeable with Scripture.
I am convinced that these things are the most important things that North American Anglicans need today. But there is one other thing that I have not mentioned so far. Above all else, there is clearly a need for spiritual revival.
Heavenly Father, we beg you to pour out your Spirit in these days. Awaken the unconverted and revive those who love you. Grant your people a true vision of your glory, a renewed faithfulness to your Word, and a deeper consecration to your service so that through their witness your kingdom may advance and all peoples be brought to fear your holy name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Endnotes:
[1] C. S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, (NewYork: HarperCollins, 1980), 226-227.
[2] Steve Sjogren, Dave Ping, and Doug Pollock, Irresistible Evangelism, (Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, 2004), 66.
[3] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 2007) 74.
[4] Ibid., 75.
[5] Nicholas Okoh, Vinay Samuel, and Chris Sugden, eds., Being Faithful: The Shape Of Historic Anglicanism Today (London: The Latimer Trust, 2009), 46.
[6] Ibid., 47.
[7] Ibid., 47-48.
[8] Ibid., 50.
13 comments:
I suppose it is predictable that a polemic for one extreme poll of a perceived dichotomy has to include slander, but really Robin, you might be better off not mentioning the Anglo-catholics if you are as ignorant of us as you write. I doubt slander is actually part of your evangelical gospel.
There are undoubtedly those among the catholic sorts who do not understand or fully accept what is on offer. I think we could find such folks on the evangelical side of the aisle too.
But(!) it is outright lieing to say we seek or preach that one can somehow confine the reality of Emmanuel - god with us -- to the moment of Eucharist. If that is actually what you think is going on you either have committed willful ignorance or read some real phonies. Here is a hint -- if that is what your evangelical teachers have sold you, you should recall the standard of honesty that jurors are told to apply in criminal cases -- if they lie about one thing you must assume all their testimony is false.
FWIW
jimB
Robin wrote: "Anglo-Catholicism keeps Christ at distance and restricts his presence to the eucharistic elements. An Anglo-Catholic cannot meet with Christ in the presence-chamber of his heart. He needs the blessed Virgin Mary and other intermediaries to approach Christ in the throne room on his behalf. He needs priests by whatever mystical powers they are supposed to have been given at their ordination through the laying-on-of-the bishop’s hands to make Christ present for him under the forms of bread and wine. This presence is not particularly personal."
Robin,
I grew up a Roman Catholic from around the time I was 4 1/2. I went to Catholic school. I went to daily Mass as often as I could as a high school student. At one point in my ministry I would have considered myself an Anglo-Catholic (liturgically, anyway).
In all that time, I never once had the kind of experiences that you are attributing to Anglo-Catholicisim or, by extension, to Rome.
Now, I won't challenge that there are Romans and Anglo-Catholics who probably do practice as you have written... but to paint the entire spectrum with such a brush is simply over-simplifying what is a very complex dynamic in Western Christianity.
I was never taught that I had to have Mary do anything for me. The most I was ever taught, Roman or Anglo-Catholic, was that Mary intercedes for us to the Father through the Son. I was never encouraged to localize Christ's presence to the Eucharist to the exclusion of all other forms of his presence. In fact, I was taught that his presence was manifest in personal prayer, Scripture reading, Sacramental experience, and in the Christian community at large. Each of these 'modes' had different benefits, and engaging each mode was necessary for wholeness and spiritual health.
I think we'd both agree that I am more on the Catholic side of things than you are (though I would more firmly side with aspects of Lutheranism and Methodism than of Rome), I can't help but point out that what you have posted is nothing more than a rehashing of the untruths that are perpetually flung in the direction of those further up the candle.
Sure, there are people who believe what you wrote... including some among the clergy. I've met my fair share of them. But not everyone of a high church persuasion believes that.
What sometimes concerns me, Robin... though I enjoy your blog... is that you seem to think that externals automatically identify theology. I fail to see what having candles and a cross on the Holy Table identifies. I have seen high churchmen and low churchmen with such decor. I fail to see what a chasuble says that a gown doesn't. I don't change my theology on the Eucharist based on my vesture, and I run the gamut from Gown and Bands to Alb, Stole, and Chasuble. I don't believe the Eucharist is a sacrifice for the living and the dead... I believe it is a means of grace, by which we recieve what Christ has promised, his body and blood, for the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. He made one sacrifice, once for all, upon the cross... the benefits of which flow out to us to this day. That doesn't changed based on my wardrobe.
Ultimately, it's your blog... but I would encourage you to be careful not to paint with a saturated roller when a fine detail brush will do just fine.
Rob+
Jim and Rob,
What I have gathered in regards to Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic theology comes from the horse's mouth, not second-hand from "evangelical teachers." It comes the writings of Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic theologians, pre-Vatican II as well as post-Vatican II. It also comes from popular Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic devotional material--as well as friends and acquaintances.
One also has to distinguish official church teachings from what the people in the pews believe. I have over the years had arguments with Roman Catholics on a number of issues. They usually appeal to the official Church Catechism. But there is a wide gap between the official Church Catechism and what may be described as "folk" or "popular" Catholicism, what the people in the pews actually believe and the beliefs parish clergy foster.
The Catholic in the pew does pray to Mary. Unless we believe that Mary is omnipresent and ominipotent, she cannot intercede on anyone's behalf without that person praying to her. The Scripture say nothing about us needing any other advocate, intercessor, or mediator with God than Christ.
There is a movement in the Roman Catholic Church to make Mary co-redemptrix with Christ. Pope Benedict's predecessor was a supporter of that movement. This is very revealing of the place that Mary has in the hearts of many Catholics.
The part of Louisiana in which I lived for more than 30 years was very Roman Catholic and its Roman Catholic population is devoted to the cult of Mary. The area has a number of shrines where sightings of her apparition has been reported and these shrines are the object of pilgrimages and other Marian devotions.
You cannot live in southeastern Louisiana without being exposed to popular Catholic beliefs. Add to the equation that my father's family is Roman Catholic and my late aunt married into a family that was Roman Catholic as did her only son.
Rob,
What I emphasize is consistancy between what we preach from the pulpit and teach in the classroom and how we celebrate the liturgy. It is inconsistant to tell people that the Holy Communion is NOT a sacrifice and the only priesthood under the New Covenant is the royal priesthood of all believers then wear a chasuble and face the altar with one's back to the congregation, both of which are associated with the medieval doctrine of sacrifice of Masses and sacerdotalism and are a denial of what we are preaching and teaching. As for candles and crosses on the communion tables of supposedly low church evangelicals, it goes to show the pervasive influence of ritualism upon the American church. It does not mean that they are an aceptable practice. In the nineteenth century the appearance of a cross and candles upon a communion would have been seen as evidence of liberalism and even a ritualistic tendency, which it in fact is.
That should have been "communion table," not "communion."
Robin,
I know plenty of Lutherans and Reformed Christians who place crosses and candlesticks on their Communion Tables. Does that make them immediately theologically suspect? The Lutherans never did away with them - at least, not officially (I am aware that they have often disappeared in Pietist circles). In fact, Luther railed against the more extreme reformers in Wittenburg and elsewhere for removing the crucifix and statues from the Church. While Luther was on record as preferring a celebration of the Supper facing the people, Lutheranism didn't by-and-large adopt such a practice until the Liturgical Movement took hold. Lutherans may be many things, but they certainly aren't Roman!
Take, for example, celebrating facing the Lord's Table. The theological idea was that we are all united in prayer. Yes, the Romans subverted that over time, but that doesn't mean the philosophy is wrong. Facing the people can be viewed as reinforcing the clericalism of ages past... a set apart priest is up there, showing us what he is doing for us. He is on his side of the table, firmly in his place, and we are equally firmly being put in our place... on our side.
I did not grow up with the battles of the Episcopal Church. I know of them, sure, but they were not my own. I surely and certainly recognize that the Catholic movement in the CofE lead in most respects to the moral morass that is present in the corrupt practices of modern Anglicanism... but that doesn't mean that everyone who follows certain practices is a heretic, or that the practices themselves are evil or misleading.
The question, I suppose, ultimately becomes... do we view scripture as regulative or permissive in worship. If it is regulative, then our entire Liturgy must go, and we must in fact abandon all but what Scripture itself explicity commands. If we accept a permissive principle, we have ground for variety... the faith must be the same, but how we communicate it may differ.
To be honest, I have been at celebrations of the Lord's Supper ranging from smells and bells in a cathedral to a stole over a T-shirt and shorts in a living room. I have certain preferences about worship that won't have my seeking out that particular living room experience on a regular basis, but I will not doubt the faith of the officiant... because in the course of proclaiming the Word and administering the Sacrament, he showed himself to be orthodox.
Rob+
Rob,
Here again I must reiterate that the principle that I affirm is that of consistancy between what we preach and teach and how we celebrate the liturgy. It is an outworking of the ancient saying "lex orandi, lex credendi," loosely translatable from the Latin as "the law of prayer is the law of belief," often stated as "we pray what we believe." It applies not only to words but also to gestures, to ceremonies, to vestments, & c. How we pray as well as what we pray reflects what we believe and also shapes what we believe.
If the minister stands at the west side of the communion table, he is assuming the place of the host at a meal at which Christ is the host. If he stands at the east side of the table, then he assumes the place of a sacrificing priest. If, however, he stands at the north side or end of the table, and the table is placed in the body of the church, he then assumes the place of a servant, a steward, which is his proper role in the Communion Service.
The minister the New Testament tells us is a steward of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:13). The New Testament does not distinguish between overseers and elders. An overseer/elder is God's steward (Titus 1:7) The minister, when he administers the sacrament of Holy Communion, is like is the faithful and wise servant ("bondservant in the Greek) of Matthew 24:45 whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time. He gives them not only the food of the sacrament but also the food of the Word.
Robin,
I understand the argument you are making, but you are making it based on your own context. Not everyone shares it, and the fact that not everyone shares it does not mean they are wrong. It means that they come from different backgrounds and perspectives.
Indeed, there are some who use east celebration, vestments, etc., with terrible effect - creating the kind of holier-than-thou environment that quashes the people beneath their feet... but this is present in modern liturgy where a priest stands behind the table as well.
Let me offer an a contemporary example not specifically related to Church...
I was raised by my grandmother, and so I was brought up with a more - shall we say - reverential attitude towards those in leadership over me. A few weeks ago, I was in the office of the VP I report to at the hospital for a meeting. They were repainting the admin offices, so all of the stuff on the walls was down and on the table we normally use to meet. As a result, she had to sit behind her desk, and I had to sit on the other side of it.
My boss profusely apologized over and over again over the course of our one hour meeting. She felt horrible about creating this separation between us. That was her modern business sense. She felt it was only appropriate to be sitting side-by-side with her staff. I, on the other hand, wasn't fazed in the least (except by her continual apologies). This is what I grew up to expect. It's my sociology. It just doesn't bother me. If you want to sit at a round table right next to me, or across a desk, I really don't care... but I don't somehow think she's a different person, or has a different belief about how she runs things based on that meeting.
In the same way, it's not simply the liturgical action alone, but the everyday actions that flow from who we are as a people of God that contextualizes what the liturgy means in modern culture. I have celebrated east, west, and even - on one occassion - north. My preference is to have the people come forward and stand or kneel in a circle around the Lord's Table with me facing east (at a freestanding Table, obviously) whenever possible. Here at the hospital, however, the Holy Table is against the back wall of our Chapel, and the pulpit sits in front of it. They can't be moved, so I am stuck... East celebration (there isn't room for north) or none.
In like manner, chasubles, stoles, and albs have their place because they are historically a part of Christian dress - and that historicity predates the many Eucharistic controversies of the Middle Ages and Reformation/Post-Reformation era. In particular, I would be in favor of the entire congregation wearing albs for worship... as they signify the purity of baptism... with the ordained cleric wearing a stole symbolic of office. Of course, if we all came to church and put on a white gown, the Feds might come in and try to arrest us for being a cult, but oh well...
Anyway, the point remains that while I am very reticent to use the 'three legged stool' for determining my theology, I have no problem understanding that many different factors go into ceremonial. The Lord's Supper is the Lord's Supper, regardless of the dress of the officiant.
Can the dress convey a certain doctrine? Yes. Does it have to? As the Lutherans have shown, no.
Rob+
Rob,
I have made two changes in the article. I dropped the "Anglo-" form "Anglo-Catholic" in one sentence, and I have replaced the section to which you drew attention. If you and other readers are focusing upon that section as it was originally worded instead of the main thrust of the article then the article is not serving its purpose.
I am planning a number of articles upon different aspects of Christian worship and liturgy, including vestments I plan to expand upon my thinking in one or more of these articles.
The English Reformers saw fit to do away eucharistic vestments even though they had long been in use. Their long use, in their minds, did not warrant their continued use. The Lutherans chose to retain them. Cranmer offers an explanation of his own and the Church of England's position in "Of Ceremonies, "Why some be abolished, and some retained."
"And in these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only: For we think it convenient that every country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition; and that they should put away other things, which from time to time they perceive to be most abused, as in men's ordinances it often chanceth diversely in divers countries."
The English Reformers were of the decided opinion that eucharistic vestments despite their antiquity were unprofitable, and had "blinded the people, and obscured the glory of God," therefore they were "worthy to be cut away and clean rejected." They had good reasons to do so and those reasons have not disappeared in 450 odd years. If we teach, as the New Testament teaches, that the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice but a meal upon a sacrifice, then our practice must be consistent and congruent with our teaching. If we teach, as the New Testament teaches, that the all believers are Christ's royal priesthood, then our practice must be consistent and congruent with our teaching. Our teaching and our practice must convey the same message.
It does not matter what was done in antiquity. It does not matter what the Lutherans do. The chasuble was at one time ordinary street wear--something akin to a poncho. If we really did what they did in antiquity, then we would wear no vestments at all but street clothes to celebrate the liturgy. As for the Lutherans, I refer you to what Cranmer wrote in "Of Ceremonies..."
Robin,
I'll continue to look forward to your writing.
I would ask, since you pointed it out: Why bother with vestments at all. Certainly throughout the 70's and 80's there was a movement in some wings of the Evangelical party in the CofE to get rid of them... officiating in tab collar or, even, shirt and tie became perfectly acceptable. Would you advocate this as the regular practice for a renewed Anglicanism?
Ultimately, I think you are right about one significant point regarding vestments and teaching: vestments (beyond a common vestment like the alb) create or portray a view of a ministerial caste of some kind. The use of any garment that is not common in the Church would have this effect. The alb is one thing, but the minute you use a gown, hood, tippet, stole, chasuble, cope, etc., you create by default a separate caste. The Ordinal has always required that the newly ordained be decently habited... and the canons of the Church described what that habit was to be. The Church of England has, therefore, maintained a ministerial clericus in its midst, a clericus with authority to do certain things that the average Joe and Jane cannot do. Even if we argue that the Latin view of Apostolic Succession is not contemplated in the Articles or the Ordinal, the fact of the matter is one must be ordained *somehow* before they can publically baptize, preach, administer the Lord's Supper, etc.
Thus, the idea of a clerical state is retained and always has been in Anglicanism - even in its lowest-churchmanship forms - since Anglicanism began. It is a reality that cannot be escaped. The idea that certain people bear specific, called responsibilities in the Church is a biblical concept - which is why Ordination is viewed as attested to in Scripture (perhaps not as a Sacrament, but as a definate example of how to perpetuate the Church) in various forms. Put another way, the Priesthood of all Believers does not negate ordained ministerial positions in the Church.
If that, indeed, is the case, then it doesn't matter what we wear when we execute those duties... because there is a calling out of a specific person as leader, be he dressed in full Eucharistics or a sport shirt...
Rob+
Under the UCMJ, "will-full ignorance" is not a viable defense -- I am just saying.
Robin,
Let me try one at a time. The Scripture tells us we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. When a Roman Catholic devout says for instance a "Hail Mary" they are saying something you and I have said to each other, "please pray for me." Nothing more is going on and if you read the words that is the "plain meaning." Does that make her (or any other saint) somehow 'priestly' in the sense of being an intermediary. Evangelicals go out of their way not to get that in my experience.
I an not Roman, have never been and do not say that prayer. I know lots of affirming catholic Episcopalians and most are rather more like me than they like your caricature. I do know some who do say it (my elder son) but they are very clear on what they are doing which is not what you miss-state.
Second, no one is trying to capture or confine the real presence when the Eucharist is celebrated. In fact exactly the opposite is true. The liturgy explicitly tells the communicants to take what they have been given by God out into the world.
You might especially look at alternate prayer C in the current TEC prayerbook which is very explicit. To paraphrase: Take the blessing you have received here and go out there -- get busy!
It is if one skips the last hundred years of biblical archeology, to come to a Calvinist position -- I guess, sort of, maybe. Bur(!) the only way to get to the silly picture of the Anglo-catholic or even the Roman Catholic view is to deliberately overstate the excesses of the 1300's.
FWIW
jimB
Uh oh, you're citing Packer, anathema to the Anglo-Magpie Hyper-Calvin-Parisee set.
Tongues as a gift have ceased to exist. That has been Anglican and Reformation teaching since day one. Or does turn-of-the-century Los Angeles change all that?
The problem with Anglo-Catholicism is its rejection of Protestantism and the XXXIX Articles, and the dishonest handling of BCP theology. Whether some pray to Mary or not (some do), whether some have a personal relationship with Christ or not (some do), whether some see the Holy Communion as a sacrifice or not (some do), all these are ultimately not the issue.
Do you accept the XXXIX Articles at face value, or not? If not, you're not Anglican.
BTW, "Eucharist" is not an Anglican term. Lord's Supper and Holy Communion are the two BCP terms.
Post a Comment