One of the things that has always fascinated me about Anglicanism in the USA is the way in which folks always seem to want to draw the boundaries tighter in the hope that they will eventually have an unambiguous, error-free Church. Chances are that you will also have a dead orthodoxy, but that does not seem to bother that particular school of thought. On the other hand, there are those that believe that success for the church lies in making one more concession to zeitgeist, and after that the people will come flooding back. Both approaches are inherently wrong because they fail to understand that Anglicanism has an integrity, and, moreover, an integrity which is not altogether its own.
Now why do I make that strange claim. Well, if you take a look at the documents that came out of the English Reformation, one can only reach one conclusion. That the Church of England avoided the Confessionalism of the Continental Reformed Churches, whilst reaching the same broad conclusions about the nature of the Ancient Faith. I have been known to quip that the 39 Articles are 'broadly Reformed; but narrowly Augustinian' which is intended to draw attention to the fact that whilst the XXXIX are broadly in line with the moderate Reformed theology, the actual reference is back to St Augustine of Hippo. It is also interesting to note that one of the few non-Biblical references or allusions in the XXXIX is to St Jerome. A casual look through the two books of Homilies will reveal an alarming tendancy to quote not the magisterial Reformers, but rather the Early Fathers. Jewel and Hooker, and also their less contempories like Whitgift, quote extensively from the Early Fathers - especially the four Latin Doctors, all of which should give you a clue about the general orientation of English Reformed theology, which was away from the mediaeval Church and towards the Early Fathers.
Now I am often accused of being insufficiently deferential towards the Affirmation of St Louis, but that may not be unrelated to the fact that I seem to have run into more than my fair share of Bishops and Priests who used it as a billy-club for battering those who disagree with them and for transforming Anglicanism into something that it never was. Anglicanism was never intended to be a "Western Orthodoxy" or a "Non-Papal Catholicism" constructed out of the fancies of Twentieth Century clergymen, but the old Ecclesia Anglicana cleansed of the abuses that had arisen during the Middle Ages continuing in the theological tradition set by the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church. There is both continuity and change in the reformation settlement. The XXXIX Articles and the Book of Common Prayer were intended as a blunt instruments to strip away the abuses of the Papal Church, but in no way were they intended to contradict or undermine the basic Catholicity of the English Church which lay in its acceptence of the Scriptures, Creeds, and Early Councils of the Church. Indeed, this was the whole justification behing the Reformation - let's ditch the Papal Church, which is corrupt - and get back to the Apostles' fellowship and teaching as relaid to us by the Early Fathers and Councils. As a result, Anglican theology, both Evangelical and High Church developed along Patristic, Creedal lines, not along narrowly Confessional lines. In many ways, the XXXIX Articles became a nail on which Anglican theologicans hung what they had learnt from the Fathers.
The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is what happened between 1820 and 1970, which is basically the development of first Liberalism, and then modern Relativism both of which have, in theological circles, been very corrosive to the authority of Scripture, the Creeds, and the Fathers and Councils of the Church. This process has culminated in the bleat of liberal theologians today who preach the Gosppel of Inclusion, not the Gospel of Christ, and who claim that as the Church wrote the Bible (in a sense true, but...;) it can re-write (not true, because Scripture is inspired by God.) Needless to say, the 1970s version of this attitude of mind was the backdrop to the Episcopal Church's great act of forgetting and the creation of the new Episcopal Religion over the 35 years following 1967. So when the mainstream of the Continuum (in terms of numbers) came to organize in 1977 it was natural that they should produce a document that presented the answer of the orthodox that had recently left ECUSA to the modernism that had driven them out. The 'big surprise' is that, apart from a few clauses intended to prevent Anglo-Catholics becoming the whipping boys of the new Church as they had been (in their own opinion) in the old, the solution to the problem of "Modernism" was exactly the same one as was presented by in the 16th century to solve the problem of "Papism." In short, when you wish to understand the doctrine of the Church as expressed in the BCP and the Articles, go to the Bible, the Creeds, the Fathers, and the Councils; don't make it up as you go along.
What bugs me about the Affirmation is not what it says, but the way in which some folks have used it to stage a supposedly catholic counter-revolution against the Old Anglicanism, and the way in which in their eyes it has become the only formulary of modern orthodox Anglicanism. The stated purpose of the Affirmation, and in my view its only legitimate purpose, was to maintain, preserve and continue the catholicity of the Old Anglicanism, and address the abuses ushered in by 1960s and 70s liberalism. In other words, it was written to keep things tidy by exclusing the neology of the 1970s from the new jurisdiction. Unfortunately, things did not quite work out that way as politics took over and the Movement become divide. However, that does not diminish the usefulness of the Affirmation of St Louis in excluding revisionist interpretations of the Bible, Creeds, BCP, Articles, etc., from the Continuing Churches. Doubtless I shall again be accused of inconsistency, but if you care to read more than two articles in this blog, you will actually find that I am fairly consistent - at least as consistent as most other folks - in my theological position. I admit I was a little sloppy in my last post, but anyone reasonably familiar with my scribbling would doubt that my basic position is that in order to maintain an orthodox Anglicanism one has to reference the formularies of the Church against the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and base the teaching of the Church upon what the ancient Fathers and Councils taught as they explained the Scriptures and the Creeds back in the great age of Orthodoxy. What I am very resistent to is changing the worship of the Church, or totally trashing what happened under Elizabeth I, because the enduring Refromation in England, and the one that created the conditions for Anglicanism to mature theologically was not Henry's or Edward's - both of which lasted slightly longer than the proverbial wine gum - but Elizabeth's. Never forget, it was Matthew Parker, the Reformer, who told us to interpret that Articles and Homilies in 'the most Catholic sense.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
Barking up the Wrong Tree?
Some of you will be aware of the recent letter to the leadership of the Anglican Church in North America that was composed by Archbishop Haverland, and co-signed by several other heads of jurisdictions including the present writer. Whilst I would agree with almost everything in that letter, especially the fact that it highlights that the ACNA policy of 'local option' on the Ordination of Women prevent substantial dialogue with the older Continuing Groups, there were a couple of things in the final paragraph from which I strongly dissent. In retrospect I probably should have encouraged Archbishop Haverland to drop those references, rather than put myself in a position where I have to clarify my position.
Firstly, whilst I would agree with the idea that the ACNA take a look at the Affirmation of St Louis, I would suggest that they do so with a critical eye, and reject those parts of it which are contrary to traditional Anglicanism. The seven sacraments, and the seven Ecumenical Councils, whilst widely referred to as teaching tools in traditional Anglicanism were never accorded official status. The Articles require that dogma have Biblical warrant creating a hierarchy of authority which subordinates the Councils to Scripture. More mischieveous than those provisions is the call in the Affirmation that all older Anglican formularies be interpreted, not in accordance with the Ecumenical Councils, but with the Affirmation itself. This has always stuck in my craw because it strikes me as just as revisionist as the party line from 'Miss Kitty Cat House' (aka "815") condemning Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina for schism when in fact he is faithful maintaining the doctrine, discipline and worship of the post-'79 Episcopal Church! Taken with the clause in the Affirmation allowing liturgies 'containing the BCP' (you ain't foolin' me; you mean the Missals) these clauses constitute an assisted suicide programme for all forms of orthodox Anglicanism except Anglo-Catholicism. Therefore, if classical Anglicanism is to survive and flourish, and a united Continuum is to emerge, we need to eschew the Affirmation of St Louis at least in part.
Secondly, I am a little slow on the uptake sometimes, and missed the reference to Metropolitan Jonah's remarks when I first read it. This is my own fault because Eastern Orthodoxy is something that exists at the far side of the Baltic so far as I am concerned. However, having educated myself a bit, it seems that Metropolitan Jonah's remarks were in fact a trashing of the whole Western theological tradition, and especially the Evangelical (Lutheran) and Reformed traditions. As I believe quite firmly that Anglicanism is, in the words of the Church of Ireland Constitution, a 'Catholic and Apostolic, Protestant and Reformed' Church, I am compelled to say that Metropolitan Jonah's remarks are just another trip down that familiar road - when dealing with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism - of convert heretic scum! Whilst I do not have a problem with that position; as it is (in liberal theologian speak) "their integrity;" I do not see why we should be so daft as to agree with them. After all, Anglicanism has its own integrity based on Scripture, the ancient Creeds and Council, the Articles and the BCP.
In calling the ACNA to take heed to the Affirmation of St Louis and the remarks of Metropolitan Jonah, I think the letter ends on a false note in what is otherwise an excellent letter by basically asking ACNA to bark up the same wrong tree as most of the older Continuing jurisdictions. Personally, I think they should use the Affirmation of St Louis as a warning and make no new formularies. The old American Episcopal Church, to which the Anglican Province in America and the Anglican Church in America are successors, had it right with their Declaration of Principles which affirmed the male character of Major Orders, the Sanctity of Life, and the nature of Christian Marriage. It was a sort of 'off side rule' which put the "neology" of the 1960s out of play so far as the AEC was concerned. The UECNA pursued a very similar path by subordinating the Affirmation of St Louis (which is not mentioned in our Constitution and Canons) to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the BCP (which are.) Both approaches are intended to mark a straightforward return to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the old Church without restoring to the 'invisible mending' indulged in by the Affirmation.
My great fear is that unless a united and uniting Continuing Church firmly subordinates the Affirmation of St Louis to the Articles, BCP and Homilies, that Church will not remain united for long. The original ACNA(E) of 1977 was torn apart by politics steming from the 'revisionist' clauses of the Affirmation of St Louis. As a 'non-party Anglican' - Central Churchman, as we would say in England - I have come to distrust some of the implications of the Affirmation of St Louis. On the face of it, it is a fine document, but there are some subtle revisions of orthodox Anglican theology and practice which are dangerous, not just to Evangelicals, but to Classical Anglicans as a whole. Its aim is not to maintain the Elizabeth Settlement as revised in 1662 and 1787, but more the Church a good distance along the roads to Rome and Byzantium. Whilst I am not opposed to Ecumenical Dialogue and understanding, I do oppose shifting one's own position in a dishonest way. My own fear is that if a new Continuing Church emerges based on the Affirmation of St Louis rather than the Articles and the BCP, Classical Anglicanism will be tolerated for a generation and then progessively eliminated. You say it cannot happen - well, the history of the Continuum says it can. As a Prayer Book clergyman, firstly in the ACC Diocese (MDEW) where I served in the mid-1990s, then in the Hepworth version of the TAC from 2000-2007 I was very much a second class citizen, and then later a more or less tolerated eccentric laughed at when he was gauche enough to mention the Articles and the BCP. I believe both organisations have got over those teething troubles, but there is always a danger of it re-emerging. As both jurisdictions were following pretty much the same glide path, and and both accepted the Affirmation of St Louis, I came to the conclusion that the problem was largely managerial and partly the Affirmation itself. The Affirmation of St Louis, when put into the hands of dedicated party men, can so easily become a way of excluding as unsound those who come from other orthodox Anglican traditions. If the pathology that can be fostered by the Affirmation of St Louis' revisionist clauses is allowed to continue in a united Continuum we will doom ourselves to bark up the wrong tree forever, as we will be calling for unity, then finding we have enshrined a cause of disunity in our midst!
Firstly, whilst I would agree with the idea that the ACNA take a look at the Affirmation of St Louis, I would suggest that they do so with a critical eye, and reject those parts of it which are contrary to traditional Anglicanism. The seven sacraments, and the seven Ecumenical Councils, whilst widely referred to as teaching tools in traditional Anglicanism were never accorded official status. The Articles require that dogma have Biblical warrant creating a hierarchy of authority which subordinates the Councils to Scripture. More mischieveous than those provisions is the call in the Affirmation that all older Anglican formularies be interpreted, not in accordance with the Ecumenical Councils, but with the Affirmation itself. This has always stuck in my craw because it strikes me as just as revisionist as the party line from 'Miss Kitty Cat House' (aka "815") condemning Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina for schism when in fact he is faithful maintaining the doctrine, discipline and worship of the post-'79 Episcopal Church! Taken with the clause in the Affirmation allowing liturgies 'containing the BCP' (you ain't foolin' me; you mean the Missals) these clauses constitute an assisted suicide programme for all forms of orthodox Anglicanism except Anglo-Catholicism. Therefore, if classical Anglicanism is to survive and flourish, and a united Continuum is to emerge, we need to eschew the Affirmation of St Louis at least in part.
Secondly, I am a little slow on the uptake sometimes, and missed the reference to Metropolitan Jonah's remarks when I first read it. This is my own fault because Eastern Orthodoxy is something that exists at the far side of the Baltic so far as I am concerned. However, having educated myself a bit, it seems that Metropolitan Jonah's remarks were in fact a trashing of the whole Western theological tradition, and especially the Evangelical (Lutheran) and Reformed traditions. As I believe quite firmly that Anglicanism is, in the words of the Church of Ireland Constitution, a 'Catholic and Apostolic, Protestant and Reformed' Church, I am compelled to say that Metropolitan Jonah's remarks are just another trip down that familiar road - when dealing with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism - of convert heretic scum! Whilst I do not have a problem with that position; as it is (in liberal theologian speak) "their integrity;" I do not see why we should be so daft as to agree with them. After all, Anglicanism has its own integrity based on Scripture, the ancient Creeds and Council, the Articles and the BCP.
In calling the ACNA to take heed to the Affirmation of St Louis and the remarks of Metropolitan Jonah, I think the letter ends on a false note in what is otherwise an excellent letter by basically asking ACNA to bark up the same wrong tree as most of the older Continuing jurisdictions. Personally, I think they should use the Affirmation of St Louis as a warning and make no new formularies. The old American Episcopal Church, to which the Anglican Province in America and the Anglican Church in America are successors, had it right with their Declaration of Principles which affirmed the male character of Major Orders, the Sanctity of Life, and the nature of Christian Marriage. It was a sort of 'off side rule' which put the "neology" of the 1960s out of play so far as the AEC was concerned. The UECNA pursued a very similar path by subordinating the Affirmation of St Louis (which is not mentioned in our Constitution and Canons) to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the BCP (which are.) Both approaches are intended to mark a straightforward return to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the old Church without restoring to the 'invisible mending' indulged in by the Affirmation.
My great fear is that unless a united and uniting Continuing Church firmly subordinates the Affirmation of St Louis to the Articles, BCP and Homilies, that Church will not remain united for long. The original ACNA(E) of 1977 was torn apart by politics steming from the 'revisionist' clauses of the Affirmation of St Louis. As a 'non-party Anglican' - Central Churchman, as we would say in England - I have come to distrust some of the implications of the Affirmation of St Louis. On the face of it, it is a fine document, but there are some subtle revisions of orthodox Anglican theology and practice which are dangerous, not just to Evangelicals, but to Classical Anglicans as a whole. Its aim is not to maintain the Elizabeth Settlement as revised in 1662 and 1787, but more the Church a good distance along the roads to Rome and Byzantium. Whilst I am not opposed to Ecumenical Dialogue and understanding, I do oppose shifting one's own position in a dishonest way. My own fear is that if a new Continuing Church emerges based on the Affirmation of St Louis rather than the Articles and the BCP, Classical Anglicanism will be tolerated for a generation and then progessively eliminated. You say it cannot happen - well, the history of the Continuum says it can. As a Prayer Book clergyman, firstly in the ACC Diocese (MDEW) where I served in the mid-1990s, then in the Hepworth version of the TAC from 2000-2007 I was very much a second class citizen, and then later a more or less tolerated eccentric laughed at when he was gauche enough to mention the Articles and the BCP. I believe both organisations have got over those teething troubles, but there is always a danger of it re-emerging. As both jurisdictions were following pretty much the same glide path, and and both accepted the Affirmation of St Louis, I came to the conclusion that the problem was largely managerial and partly the Affirmation itself. The Affirmation of St Louis, when put into the hands of dedicated party men, can so easily become a way of excluding as unsound those who come from other orthodox Anglican traditions. If the pathology that can be fostered by the Affirmation of St Louis' revisionist clauses is allowed to continue in a united Continuum we will doom ourselves to bark up the wrong tree forever, as we will be calling for unity, then finding we have enshrined a cause of disunity in our midst!
Saturday, November 17, 2012
A Broad Orthodoxy
One of the difficulties that the Continuum has faced over the five decades has been a tendancy to want to unncessarily narrow the boundaries of what constitutes Anglicanism. Our biggest difficulty is that we fail to distinguish the wood from the trees with liturgical orthodoxy being confused for doctrinal orthodoxy. Now I would conceed that there is a link between orthodoxpraxis and orthodoxy, I would also point out that two of the most theologically peculiar congregations I have worshipped in had very proper, correct, and I have to add quite "catholic" ceremonial. That would lead me to believe that the two - right practice and right belief - are not quite so tightly bound together as we all like to think. I also have to confess that I am a veteran of the Liturgy Wars, and have seen and heard learned and experienced clergy derided because they did not hold their hands quite right at Mass, or have the correct red bound tome upon the altar. All of this seems to be a case of majoring on the minor stuff to the detriment of the Gospel of Christ.
If there is something that I would say characterizes the 'Old Anglicanism' it was the ability to tolerate differences of opinion without it spinning out of control into the modern cacaphony of diversity for diversity's sake. The difference was that until the 1950s, the tolerance rested no upon an indifference to doctrine - as it tends to do today - but upon a broad consensus as to what constituted the essentials of the Christian Faith, and what was a matter of local custom. The success of the Old Episcopalianism in the USA was very largely due to this tolerant orthodoxy. One parish might be 'High and Crazy,' the next 'Low and Lazy' and the three after that 'Broad and hazy' but they accepted the same Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Ministry, they used the same Book of Common Prayer whatever their variances of ceremonial, emphasis and outlook.
Although to a large extent the UECNA started out as 'a Low Church jurisdiction' it has mainly been peopled by orthodox Broad Churchmen. Today we have some Anglo-Catholic congregations among us, and I certainly do not hear any complaints about that development in our spiritual life together. Anglo-Catholics, Central Churchmen, and Low Churchmen are able to peacefully coexist within the UECNA, and it is a bit of a mystery to me why this principled tolerance is not more widely accepted in the Continuum. After all, provided the service is not sloppy or irreverent and the Book of Common Prayer is used, then we have nothing to worry about so far as the efficiency and validity of what is being done is concerned as we share the same Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Ministry.
Anglicans share with the Lutheran tradition - that other great 'Evangelical Catholic' tradition - the concept of adiaphora. External matters are indifferent, regulated to edify the faithful. However, back in the 16th and 17th centuries neither Lutherans nor Anglicans contemplated or foresaw the sort of erosion of traditional practice that took place between 1660 and 1810. The concept of 'adiaphora' was essentially a traditionalist one, allowing the customs and ceremonial of the Church, including its sacramental worship, to survive in the face of the attempts of the 'Hot Gospellers' to turn the Church into a lecture theatre. Familiar signs and symbols were used to enable the 'eye gate' as well as the 'ear gate' to be used in the service of orthodoxy. As a mentioned in a previous post (Northernness) the Old Lutheran service in Leipzig or Hamburg was quite Anglo-Catholic to our eyes, yet in a village church using the same Ordnung, the service would have been much simpler - adapted for local needs, but preserving the substance of the Faith entire.
This mention of 'local adaptions' serves to bring me to my next point which is that the frontline so far as Christian ministry is concerned is parish ministry. To use a vulgarism 'that is where it's at.' As we all know, every neighbourhood is not the same, and in the same way not every Anglican parish - never mind Christian congregation - is the same. Therefore there is a virtue in letting each parish develop along its own lines within the basic doctrinal and liturgical framework of the Church. One parish may choose to be Low - having Communion at the early service most weeks, and usually Morning Prayer as their main service. Another may have the staff and the tradition to have a High Mass. Still another will be content to hit the happy medium with a simple Sung Eucharist on Sundays. Yet for all these differences it is still the same Church.
What we try and encourage congregations to do in the UECNA is to be the Anglican parish in their community. In some places this will mean one thing, and in others another. Yet, to return once again to the theme of this post, if we maintain the basic doctrines of the Church, and use her liturgy then we should welcome a diversity of ceremonial usage as the sign of an active, growing, and vibrant Church. To my mind, a tidy house is a house for show; whilst a messy house, with evidence of hobbies, books and so forth, is a house that is truly lived in. In the same way I believe the Church should be something that is a little bit messy with High, Low, and Broad Church parishes all working together to bring people to Christ and to be the Anglican Church in the Communities they serve. That sort of determination to witness brings a certain amount of mess and imperfection, but it is the sort of mess and imperfection that goes with life. In a sense, we have to be, as St Paul wrote 'all things to all men' so that men and women can make a connection with the Gospel and with Jesus Christ who alone saves us. On the other hand, an outwardly perfect Church is inevitably a dead or a dying Church because everyone is afraid that they might make a mess and as a result they have become self-obsessed. Our ceremonial should be an expression of our parish's life in Christ, something that lifts upwards towards the throne of grace and not an end in itself. We need to recover that Broad Orthodoxy where, whatever our ceremonial preferences, our primary work together is to proclaim the Catholic Faith revealed in the Scriptures, Creeds, Councils, and Father which leads us to Jesus, who is the Wat, the Truth and the Life.
If there is something that I would say characterizes the 'Old Anglicanism' it was the ability to tolerate differences of opinion without it spinning out of control into the modern cacaphony of diversity for diversity's sake. The difference was that until the 1950s, the tolerance rested no upon an indifference to doctrine - as it tends to do today - but upon a broad consensus as to what constituted the essentials of the Christian Faith, and what was a matter of local custom. The success of the Old Episcopalianism in the USA was very largely due to this tolerant orthodoxy. One parish might be 'High and Crazy,' the next 'Low and Lazy' and the three after that 'Broad and hazy' but they accepted the same Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Ministry, they used the same Book of Common Prayer whatever their variances of ceremonial, emphasis and outlook.
Although to a large extent the UECNA started out as 'a Low Church jurisdiction' it has mainly been peopled by orthodox Broad Churchmen. Today we have some Anglo-Catholic congregations among us, and I certainly do not hear any complaints about that development in our spiritual life together. Anglo-Catholics, Central Churchmen, and Low Churchmen are able to peacefully coexist within the UECNA, and it is a bit of a mystery to me why this principled tolerance is not more widely accepted in the Continuum. After all, provided the service is not sloppy or irreverent and the Book of Common Prayer is used, then we have nothing to worry about so far as the efficiency and validity of what is being done is concerned as we share the same Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Ministry.
Anglicans share with the Lutheran tradition - that other great 'Evangelical Catholic' tradition - the concept of adiaphora. External matters are indifferent, regulated to edify the faithful. However, back in the 16th and 17th centuries neither Lutherans nor Anglicans contemplated or foresaw the sort of erosion of traditional practice that took place between 1660 and 1810. The concept of 'adiaphora' was essentially a traditionalist one, allowing the customs and ceremonial of the Church, including its sacramental worship, to survive in the face of the attempts of the 'Hot Gospellers' to turn the Church into a lecture theatre. Familiar signs and symbols were used to enable the 'eye gate' as well as the 'ear gate' to be used in the service of orthodoxy. As a mentioned in a previous post (Northernness) the Old Lutheran service in Leipzig or Hamburg was quite Anglo-Catholic to our eyes, yet in a village church using the same Ordnung, the service would have been much simpler - adapted for local needs, but preserving the substance of the Faith entire.
This mention of 'local adaptions' serves to bring me to my next point which is that the frontline so far as Christian ministry is concerned is parish ministry. To use a vulgarism 'that is where it's at.' As we all know, every neighbourhood is not the same, and in the same way not every Anglican parish - never mind Christian congregation - is the same. Therefore there is a virtue in letting each parish develop along its own lines within the basic doctrinal and liturgical framework of the Church. One parish may choose to be Low - having Communion at the early service most weeks, and usually Morning Prayer as their main service. Another may have the staff and the tradition to have a High Mass. Still another will be content to hit the happy medium with a simple Sung Eucharist on Sundays. Yet for all these differences it is still the same Church.
What we try and encourage congregations to do in the UECNA is to be the Anglican parish in their community. In some places this will mean one thing, and in others another. Yet, to return once again to the theme of this post, if we maintain the basic doctrines of the Church, and use her liturgy then we should welcome a diversity of ceremonial usage as the sign of an active, growing, and vibrant Church. To my mind, a tidy house is a house for show; whilst a messy house, with evidence of hobbies, books and so forth, is a house that is truly lived in. In the same way I believe the Church should be something that is a little bit messy with High, Low, and Broad Church parishes all working together to bring people to Christ and to be the Anglican Church in the Communities they serve. That sort of determination to witness brings a certain amount of mess and imperfection, but it is the sort of mess and imperfection that goes with life. In a sense, we have to be, as St Paul wrote 'all things to all men' so that men and women can make a connection with the Gospel and with Jesus Christ who alone saves us. On the other hand, an outwardly perfect Church is inevitably a dead or a dying Church because everyone is afraid that they might make a mess and as a result they have become self-obsessed. Our ceremonial should be an expression of our parish's life in Christ, something that lifts upwards towards the throne of grace and not an end in itself. We need to recover that Broad Orthodoxy where, whatever our ceremonial preferences, our primary work together is to proclaim the Catholic Faith revealed in the Scriptures, Creeds, Councils, and Father which leads us to Jesus, who is the Wat, the Truth and the Life.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Why Central Churchmanship was - and is - important
One of the down sides to Anglican ministry is the tendancy of churchmen, and especially the clergy, to divide themselves into warring factions. Most of my ministry before I joined the United Episcopal Church was conducted against the background of the liturgy wars. This particular manifestation of fracteousness led to those of us who preferred to 1928 BCP being told by the self-appointed 'Liturgy Police' that we were doing it all wrong. What used to really annoy me was the fact that the folks who called you out for being disobedience to Catholic Tradition did so for using the official liturgy of the Church. They also tended behaved as though they thought that if you used the right Missal or the right vestments people would come flocking in. Occasionally, I used to consider telling them that I thought their point of view was delusional. However, I have a strong suspicion they would not have understood what I was on about. What they seemed to miss that what makes folks keep coming to Church is the idea that they are loved and that they are involved in what the Church is doing, so in the end Churchmanship and Liturgical Fetishism does not matter, but a strong loving parish Community that gets on with being Anglican can really make a difference.
This brings me to why Central Churchmanship is important. Its importance lies in its being 'Mere Anglicanism" with all that implies about loyalty the Church's formularies and ways of doing things. So So often today we are faced with hyphenated Anglicans - catholic-anglicans, anglican-evangelicals, Anglican-progressives, Charismatic-Anglicans, and so on and so forth. It seems as though unhyphenated Anglicanism has gone out of the window, and along with it the glue that used to hold the Church together! The trouble with so many of these hyphenated Anglicans is that they believe that their particular version of Anglicanism is the whole enchilada, and they have no room for, or tolerence of, other expressions of our common tradition. This has contributed greatly to the dysfunctional nature of American Anglicanism, and it is only with the reemergence of a strong 'unhyphenated Anglicanism' that the Continuing Church can begin to resolve its problems and move towards greater unity and thereby gain in effectiveness.
I am not quite sure what exactly Archbishop Doren had in mind when he established the United Episcopal Church 31 years ago, but it is quite clear with the Constitution and Canons that he had drafted that whatever he envisioned in terms of Churchmanship in the short term, there was nothing to prevent the UECNA from becoming a church where 'mere Anglicanism' would be the dominant expression of our tradition. It seems to me that, inspite of the pressure to merge, there is a need to build a proper foundation so that the whole structure does not crack and fall apart again. There is a very real sense, in which this structure cannot be built by human hands at all, but rather by the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that much of the time, because of our human dislike of messy solutions, the Holy Spirit is not given breathing room when we think about the church's future, and I would venture to suggest this is partly because so many folks seem to be obsessed with remaking Anglicanism in their own image. However. just as remaking God in our own image leads to heresy, so remaking Anglicanism in the image of whichever party you belong to leads to something that just is not Anglicanism.
Of course, I am now going to prove what a hypocrite I am by following a pitch for the non-partisan approach, but pitching for my own outlook. On the other hand pleading for 'mere Anglicanism' in the context of pleading for more cooperation and mutual forebearance cannot really be construed as true hypocracy as what I am asking for is a greater focus on what makes us Anglicans, that is, what unites us, rather than what divides us. We need to focus on, and teach our common heritage in terms of the Bible, the Creeds, the Ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church, and also about the Prayer Book, the Articles of Religion and the history of Anglicanism so that we have a common platform, a common foundation on which to build. In effect, we need to spend less time being different and more time being Anglican!
So why am I so hung up on Central Churchmanship?
A lot of the answer lies in what it says about Anglicanism. One of things that creates instability in Anglo-Papalism, Evangelicalism, the Charismatic Movement and Liberalism is the fact that they all seem to be looking to something outside of Anglicanism in order to find their validity. In the case of a lot of Anglo-Papalists they have at least one eye on Rome - usually, in the USA, the Rome of Pius XII. Many Evangelicals and Charismatics seem to behave as though they believe 'Big Box Revivalism' to be the one true Faith. The Liberals look either to Christian Socialism (with Socialism as the dominant party,) philosophical relativism, or psychology as being the bigger truth to which Anglicanism must conform. Then they are surprised when folks pass through their versions of Anglicanism to join either what they are pointing to - Rome, the Big Box, the Polit Bureau or the Academy - or to some more focussed Christian tradition. Central Churchmen, on the other hand, should be saying, "this is Anglicanism and this is what we do. Come join us!"
Of course, there is a sense in which Anglicanism should always point beyond itself. We need to direct attention away from ourselves towards Christ as every Christian should. We also need to point beyond ourselves and reference our theology against that of the Early Fathers and Councils so we do not lapse into heresy or revisionism. But other than that we need to just get on and be Anglican. We have a glorious tradition that we do not need to muchj about with. The decline of Anglicanism in America in some respects reflects the declining confidence that we have displayed in our own tradition. We need to reverse that, and one again get on with being the Church.
This brings me to why Central Churchmanship is important. Its importance lies in its being 'Mere Anglicanism" with all that implies about loyalty the Church's formularies and ways of doing things. So So often today we are faced with hyphenated Anglicans - catholic-anglicans, anglican-evangelicals, Anglican-progressives, Charismatic-Anglicans, and so on and so forth. It seems as though unhyphenated Anglicanism has gone out of the window, and along with it the glue that used to hold the Church together! The trouble with so many of these hyphenated Anglicans is that they believe that their particular version of Anglicanism is the whole enchilada, and they have no room for, or tolerence of, other expressions of our common tradition. This has contributed greatly to the dysfunctional nature of American Anglicanism, and it is only with the reemergence of a strong 'unhyphenated Anglicanism' that the Continuing Church can begin to resolve its problems and move towards greater unity and thereby gain in effectiveness.
I am not quite sure what exactly Archbishop Doren had in mind when he established the United Episcopal Church 31 years ago, but it is quite clear with the Constitution and Canons that he had drafted that whatever he envisioned in terms of Churchmanship in the short term, there was nothing to prevent the UECNA from becoming a church where 'mere Anglicanism' would be the dominant expression of our tradition. It seems to me that, inspite of the pressure to merge, there is a need to build a proper foundation so that the whole structure does not crack and fall apart again. There is a very real sense, in which this structure cannot be built by human hands at all, but rather by the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that much of the time, because of our human dislike of messy solutions, the Holy Spirit is not given breathing room when we think about the church's future, and I would venture to suggest this is partly because so many folks seem to be obsessed with remaking Anglicanism in their own image. However. just as remaking God in our own image leads to heresy, so remaking Anglicanism in the image of whichever party you belong to leads to something that just is not Anglicanism.
Of course, I am now going to prove what a hypocrite I am by following a pitch for the non-partisan approach, but pitching for my own outlook. On the other hand pleading for 'mere Anglicanism' in the context of pleading for more cooperation and mutual forebearance cannot really be construed as true hypocracy as what I am asking for is a greater focus on what makes us Anglicans, that is, what unites us, rather than what divides us. We need to focus on, and teach our common heritage in terms of the Bible, the Creeds, the Ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church, and also about the Prayer Book, the Articles of Religion and the history of Anglicanism so that we have a common platform, a common foundation on which to build. In effect, we need to spend less time being different and more time being Anglican!
So why am I so hung up on Central Churchmanship?
A lot of the answer lies in what it says about Anglicanism. One of things that creates instability in Anglo-Papalism, Evangelicalism, the Charismatic Movement and Liberalism is the fact that they all seem to be looking to something outside of Anglicanism in order to find their validity. In the case of a lot of Anglo-Papalists they have at least one eye on Rome - usually, in the USA, the Rome of Pius XII. Many Evangelicals and Charismatics seem to behave as though they believe 'Big Box Revivalism' to be the one true Faith. The Liberals look either to Christian Socialism (with Socialism as the dominant party,) philosophical relativism, or psychology as being the bigger truth to which Anglicanism must conform. Then they are surprised when folks pass through their versions of Anglicanism to join either what they are pointing to - Rome, the Big Box, the Polit Bureau or the Academy - or to some more focussed Christian tradition. Central Churchmen, on the other hand, should be saying, "this is Anglicanism and this is what we do. Come join us!"
Of course, there is a sense in which Anglicanism should always point beyond itself. We need to direct attention away from ourselves towards Christ as every Christian should. We also need to point beyond ourselves and reference our theology against that of the Early Fathers and Councils so we do not lapse into heresy or revisionism. But other than that we need to just get on and be Anglican. We have a glorious tradition that we do not need to muchj about with. The decline of Anglicanism in America in some respects reflects the declining confidence that we have displayed in our own tradition. We need to reverse that, and one again get on with being the Church.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Reformed Face of Anglicanism
The English Reformation is often glossed over by modern Episcopalians, especially those of an Anglo-Catholic bent. Yet there is no denying that reformation of the Church of England fits in, doctrinally, with the moderate end of Reformed Christianity. Cranmer evolved theologically from a Roman Catholic interested in the new learning, firstly into a Lutheran, and then, because of the shift in his views on the Eucharist in 1547, into a moderate exponant of the Reformed Faith. Cranmer's personal journey of faith left its mark on the Church of England in the form of a Liturgy that remains to this day more closely allied to Lutheran practice, but that liturgy is couple to a doctrinal stance that is broadly, but decidedly Reformed. You could almost say that the Church of England reverses the the position of the Landeskirche of Saxe-Wurttenburg, which, like several other Lutheran churches in Southwestern Germany has a Reformed Liturgy coupled to a Lutheran Confession.
Although modern Anglicans try to ignore the fact, both the Edwardian and Elizabethan Settlements took a reformed stance. The creative phase of the English Reformation covers the period 1538 to 1565, which is precise the time frame in which the Reformed Faith, as exemplified by Geneva, takes over from the more moderate reform of Luther. However, the English Reformation was not quite as radical as that of Geneva in its final form, and this did much to set up the tension between Churchman and Puritan in the later years of Elizabeth I's reign. However, it has to be understood that the quarrel between Whitgift and Cartwright, and later generations of churchmen and puritans was not an argument between theological systems, but a disagreement (to use a mild word for it) within the Reformed Faith.
The 42 Articles of 1552 and the 39 Articles of 1563, both commit the Church of England to the fundamentals of the Reformed Faith. Both sets of Articles affirm the centrality of Scripture, and take a monergist position on Justification. Both sets of Articles affirm that the Church of England accepts the doctrine of predestination and election as a 'comfort to the faithful' but warn against over much speculation concerning that doctrine. Indeed a casual reading of the Wurttemburg Confession of 1551, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Scots Confession of 1560, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion reveal them to be cut from the same bolt of cloth. Although the Lambeth Articles of 1595 never received royal sanction, they do reflect the theological reality of the Church of England in the later years of Elizabeth I's reign. It was a Calvinist Church, but one with Bishops and a Liturgy. The double pre-destinarian theology of the Lambeth Articles may not have found favour with the Queen and with the moderates, but apart from a few eccentrics - whose opinions the Article were meant to refute - the English Church was commited to a reformed and predestinarian theology. This is a contrast to today where may Anglicans identify as Reformed Catholic, but their Reformed Catholicism is not that of the Articles, but a form of Old Catholicism. This is a direct consequence of the attempts made by Anglo-Papalists and Anglo-Catholics to Unreform the Church.
Now I have to conceed at this point that not all Anglo-Catholics reject the Reformation, and, as you will have noticed if you have read older posts on the Old High Churchman, some are indeed sympathetic to the positive principles of the Reformation, but there has always been what I call 'the Hurrell Froude' element who speak of the Reformation as a 'limb badly set.' I have to be very honest and say that I do not concur with their very negative view of the Refomation as I believe in taking our formularies of our Church at their face value. That is to say, in reading the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Homilies, and the BCP in their natural, grammatical sense. In doing that one comes to the unavoidable conclusion that Anglicanism is indeed a Via Media, but not between Catholicism and Protestantism, but between Lutheranism and Calvinism. It is also pointless to deny the evidence of a continuous series of prominent clergymen in the Anglican tradition who have been Reformed in their theology. Even after the Restoration, when Calvinism was clean out of fashion, Bishops like Edward Reynolds of Norwich and George Morley of Winchester held to their Predestinarian views and a basically Reformed theological framework. Therefore the Calvinism of early Evangelicals - like George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady, and Samuel Walker was not an innovation, but a manifestation of a reinvigorated, living, Calvinist tradition in the Church of England.
From the time of the great Revival of the mid-eighteenth century through to today there has been no lack of professors of the Reformed faith in the Anglican tradition. Folks like Henry Venn, Charles Simeon, C R Sumner, J C Ryle, Charles McIllvaine, William Meade and John Johns all identified with Calvinism, but were unstinting in their devotion to the Church of England or the Protestant Episcopal Church. Growing up in the Church of England I could rely on the fact that about 10% of the clergy, even in a relatively liberal diocese, would be Reformed in regard to their dogmatic theology. Given that pedigree it seems gratuitous to try and exclude those of us who hold to Reformed principles from the Anglican Continuum. However, there are those who have done their best to do so, and such unofficial doctrinal and liturgical 'tests' have done their share to promote schism in the Continuum. This seems a particular pity when one realises the power to convict and convert that has always been God's particular gift to the Evangelical and Reformed clergy of the Anglican Church.
I hope that you have gathered from the remarks I have made above that I regard the Reformed face of Anglicanism not as an anomoly, but as an essential element in our Anglican tradition. Anglicanism has Reformed roots, and when we deny those roots we are in a sense denying who we are. There is no doubt that God has not finished with the Anglican version of the Reformed tradition, but it needs a home. We also need to get back to the old Anglican Evangelicalism, an ordered, discipline, liturgical, but above all Biblical and Refomed tradition offering to men and women the gift of eternal salvation in Christ Jesus. I think it would be good for all of us if we sought out too books by J C Ryle which are intended to strengthen and inspire. The first is entitled 'Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century' which gives potted bios of such Anglican Evangelical luminaries as Henry Venn, William Grimshaw, and Daniel Rowlands. The other is 'Old Paths' a collection of essays about the Reformed faith which will do much to clear up any misconception one might have about the nature of the Reformed Faith.
Although modern Anglicans try to ignore the fact, both the Edwardian and Elizabethan Settlements took a reformed stance. The creative phase of the English Reformation covers the period 1538 to 1565, which is precise the time frame in which the Reformed Faith, as exemplified by Geneva, takes over from the more moderate reform of Luther. However, the English Reformation was not quite as radical as that of Geneva in its final form, and this did much to set up the tension between Churchman and Puritan in the later years of Elizabeth I's reign. However, it has to be understood that the quarrel between Whitgift and Cartwright, and later generations of churchmen and puritans was not an argument between theological systems, but a disagreement (to use a mild word for it) within the Reformed Faith.
The 42 Articles of 1552 and the 39 Articles of 1563, both commit the Church of England to the fundamentals of the Reformed Faith. Both sets of Articles affirm the centrality of Scripture, and take a monergist position on Justification. Both sets of Articles affirm that the Church of England accepts the doctrine of predestination and election as a 'comfort to the faithful' but warn against over much speculation concerning that doctrine. Indeed a casual reading of the Wurttemburg Confession of 1551, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Scots Confession of 1560, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion reveal them to be cut from the same bolt of cloth. Although the Lambeth Articles of 1595 never received royal sanction, they do reflect the theological reality of the Church of England in the later years of Elizabeth I's reign. It was a Calvinist Church, but one with Bishops and a Liturgy. The double pre-destinarian theology of the Lambeth Articles may not have found favour with the Queen and with the moderates, but apart from a few eccentrics - whose opinions the Article were meant to refute - the English Church was commited to a reformed and predestinarian theology. This is a contrast to today where may Anglicans identify as Reformed Catholic, but their Reformed Catholicism is not that of the Articles, but a form of Old Catholicism. This is a direct consequence of the attempts made by Anglo-Papalists and Anglo-Catholics to Unreform the Church.
Now I have to conceed at this point that not all Anglo-Catholics reject the Reformation, and, as you will have noticed if you have read older posts on the Old High Churchman, some are indeed sympathetic to the positive principles of the Reformation, but there has always been what I call 'the Hurrell Froude' element who speak of the Reformation as a 'limb badly set.' I have to be very honest and say that I do not concur with their very negative view of the Refomation as I believe in taking our formularies of our Church at their face value. That is to say, in reading the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Homilies, and the BCP in their natural, grammatical sense. In doing that one comes to the unavoidable conclusion that Anglicanism is indeed a Via Media, but not between Catholicism and Protestantism, but between Lutheranism and Calvinism. It is also pointless to deny the evidence of a continuous series of prominent clergymen in the Anglican tradition who have been Reformed in their theology. Even after the Restoration, when Calvinism was clean out of fashion, Bishops like Edward Reynolds of Norwich and George Morley of Winchester held to their Predestinarian views and a basically Reformed theological framework. Therefore the Calvinism of early Evangelicals - like George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady, and Samuel Walker was not an innovation, but a manifestation of a reinvigorated, living, Calvinist tradition in the Church of England.
From the time of the great Revival of the mid-eighteenth century through to today there has been no lack of professors of the Reformed faith in the Anglican tradition. Folks like Henry Venn, Charles Simeon, C R Sumner, J C Ryle, Charles McIllvaine, William Meade and John Johns all identified with Calvinism, but were unstinting in their devotion to the Church of England or the Protestant Episcopal Church. Growing up in the Church of England I could rely on the fact that about 10% of the clergy, even in a relatively liberal diocese, would be Reformed in regard to their dogmatic theology. Given that pedigree it seems gratuitous to try and exclude those of us who hold to Reformed principles from the Anglican Continuum. However, there are those who have done their best to do so, and such unofficial doctrinal and liturgical 'tests' have done their share to promote schism in the Continuum. This seems a particular pity when one realises the power to convict and convert that has always been God's particular gift to the Evangelical and Reformed clergy of the Anglican Church.
I hope that you have gathered from the remarks I have made above that I regard the Reformed face of Anglicanism not as an anomoly, but as an essential element in our Anglican tradition. Anglicanism has Reformed roots, and when we deny those roots we are in a sense denying who we are. There is no doubt that God has not finished with the Anglican version of the Reformed tradition, but it needs a home. We also need to get back to the old Anglican Evangelicalism, an ordered, discipline, liturgical, but above all Biblical and Refomed tradition offering to men and women the gift of eternal salvation in Christ Jesus. I think it would be good for all of us if we sought out too books by J C Ryle which are intended to strengthen and inspire. The first is entitled 'Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century' which gives potted bios of such Anglican Evangelical luminaries as Henry Venn, William Grimshaw, and Daniel Rowlands. The other is 'Old Paths' a collection of essays about the Reformed faith which will do much to clear up any misconception one might have about the nature of the Reformed Faith.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Northernness
C S Lewis had a great interest in the cultural values, folklore, and traditions of the various northern European peoples, and he asserted that there were some basic qualities that united the folks of the North. He referred to this as 'northernness.' However, I want to talk about a different sort of 'Northernness' - the 'High church Lutheran' liturgical tradition that prevailed throughout northern Germany, Denmark-Norway, and Sweden-Finland until the third quarter of the eighteenth century when the prevailing rationalism of the age began to erode traditional liturgical uses.
Luther was the quintessential conservative radical. Although his return to St Paul, St Augustine and the Early Father's marked him out as a radical - in the best sense of the word - his liturgical ideas were conservative. Firstly, he retained much of the old Mass either in Latin in the Formula Missae; or in metrical German paraphrases in the Deutsche Messe of 1526. Also he allowed a certain amount of freedom over liturgical forms, so although some churches stuck very close to the Wittenburg norms, others veered in a more or less traditional direction. Generally they tended to be more conservative in Northern Germany, and less so in the Southwest - Wurttemburg, etc..
Luther also encouraged the retention of the traditional vestments, the Eastward position, and chanting. He also sought to simplify, not eliminate, the ceremonial of the Mass. The typical North German Lutheran Mass tended to be made up of the following elements
Introit
Kyrie
Gloria
Collect
Epistle
Gradual
(Chorale)
Gospel
Creed
(Chorale)
Sermon
(Chorale)
Prayer for the Church
Preface
Sanctus
Lord's Prayer
Verba
Agnus Dei and Communion
Final Collect
Aaronic Blessing
(Chorale)
The German language version omitted the Preface and the Sanctus, and usually the Introit and Gradual were only sung where there were choristers used to singing in Latin. As time passed the service was increasingly prefaced with a general confession and absolution. This type of service was also the common service of the Church in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and their possessions, though in Scandanavia the Formula was the usual model for divine service even for vernacular liturgies where one would have expected the Deutsche Messe to be the pattern.
Gunther Stiller in his book "J S Bach and the Liturgical Tradition in Leipzig" has compiled a huge amount of material about the orthodox Lutheran liturgy in Saxony in the 1730s. It is clear that Leipzig enjoyed public worship on the grand scale. Though usually there were only two or three ordained ministers taking part, the setting was splendid. Mass vestments in the form of cassock surplice and chasuble were worn, Latin was used for the ordinary of the Mass, the Collect, the Proper Preface, and the Sanctus. On great feasts there were two cantatas sung; one before the Creed, the other during Communion - and there were often several hundred communicants who had made their private confession to one of the clergy when supplying their names to the curate as intending communicants for the next Eucharist. Even the Sanctus Bell was in use! It also points to the vitality of the orthodox Lutheran tradition in Saxony, presenting a picture far removed from that presented by Pietist and Rationalist propagandists.
The Thomaskirche in Leipzig represented the Lutheran liturgy at its most splendid, but cities like Lubeck, Hamburg, Roskilde, Copenhagen, Trondheim, Stockholm, Uppsala had similar large scale "high church" liturgies which survived late in the 18th century. Although Rationalism was ultimately triumphant in Germany, the Danes, Nowegians and Swedes all resisted its encroachments preserving the orthodox Lutheran liturgy into the modern age. This "High Church" Lutheranism presented the Lutheran version of the Cathedral tradition found in England, and like England, the parish church service was much simpler. However, the Deutsche Messe of Luther, and the Agendas used in other local Lutheran Churches retained the Mass as the main service, and in principle that Mass was to be a Sung service. England due to the Puritan aggression had lost much of it sunging tradition in its parish churches, but it is evident from the Rubrics of the 1559 and 1662 Books of Common Prayer that that had not been the intent of the Reformation and Restoration Convocations and Parliaments. They intended to preserve something of the solemnity of the old forms, whilst embrace a thorough reform of the Church Service.
The message that I am trying to get across here is that there is nothing against the Prayer Book, or unprotestant about having a beautiful Church service with fine music and colourful traditional vestments. However it is uncatholic to use a liturgy not allowed by the Church. I hope that over the next few years an increasing number of Anglican clergy will quit fooling around with the Missals and return to the Book of Common Prayer. I also hope that when they do so, they will return to the ornaments and the ceremonial of 'the second year of King Edward the Sixt' and put into effect the liturgical intentions of our Reformation.
Luther was the quintessential conservative radical. Although his return to St Paul, St Augustine and the Early Father's marked him out as a radical - in the best sense of the word - his liturgical ideas were conservative. Firstly, he retained much of the old Mass either in Latin in the Formula Missae; or in metrical German paraphrases in the Deutsche Messe of 1526. Also he allowed a certain amount of freedom over liturgical forms, so although some churches stuck very close to the Wittenburg norms, others veered in a more or less traditional direction. Generally they tended to be more conservative in Northern Germany, and less so in the Southwest - Wurttemburg, etc..
Luther also encouraged the retention of the traditional vestments, the Eastward position, and chanting. He also sought to simplify, not eliminate, the ceremonial of the Mass. The typical North German Lutheran Mass tended to be made up of the following elements
Introit
Kyrie
Gloria
Collect
Epistle
Gradual
(Chorale)
Gospel
Creed
(Chorale)
Sermon
(Chorale)
Prayer for the Church
Preface
Sanctus
Lord's Prayer
Verba
Agnus Dei and Communion
Final Collect
Aaronic Blessing
(Chorale)
The German language version omitted the Preface and the Sanctus, and usually the Introit and Gradual were only sung where there were choristers used to singing in Latin. As time passed the service was increasingly prefaced with a general confession and absolution. This type of service was also the common service of the Church in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and their possessions, though in Scandanavia the Formula was the usual model for divine service even for vernacular liturgies where one would have expected the Deutsche Messe to be the pattern.
Gunther Stiller in his book "J S Bach and the Liturgical Tradition in Leipzig" has compiled a huge amount of material about the orthodox Lutheran liturgy in Saxony in the 1730s. It is clear that Leipzig enjoyed public worship on the grand scale. Though usually there were only two or three ordained ministers taking part, the setting was splendid. Mass vestments in the form of cassock surplice and chasuble were worn, Latin was used for the ordinary of the Mass, the Collect, the Proper Preface, and the Sanctus. On great feasts there were two cantatas sung; one before the Creed, the other during Communion - and there were often several hundred communicants who had made their private confession to one of the clergy when supplying their names to the curate as intending communicants for the next Eucharist. Even the Sanctus Bell was in use! It also points to the vitality of the orthodox Lutheran tradition in Saxony, presenting a picture far removed from that presented by Pietist and Rationalist propagandists.
The Thomaskirche in Leipzig represented the Lutheran liturgy at its most splendid, but cities like Lubeck, Hamburg, Roskilde, Copenhagen, Trondheim, Stockholm, Uppsala had similar large scale "high church" liturgies which survived late in the 18th century. Although Rationalism was ultimately triumphant in Germany, the Danes, Nowegians and Swedes all resisted its encroachments preserving the orthodox Lutheran liturgy into the modern age. This "High Church" Lutheranism presented the Lutheran version of the Cathedral tradition found in England, and like England, the parish church service was much simpler. However, the Deutsche Messe of Luther, and the Agendas used in other local Lutheran Churches retained the Mass as the main service, and in principle that Mass was to be a Sung service. England due to the Puritan aggression had lost much of it sunging tradition in its parish churches, but it is evident from the Rubrics of the 1559 and 1662 Books of Common Prayer that that had not been the intent of the Reformation and Restoration Convocations and Parliaments. They intended to preserve something of the solemnity of the old forms, whilst embrace a thorough reform of the Church Service.
The message that I am trying to get across here is that there is nothing against the Prayer Book, or unprotestant about having a beautiful Church service with fine music and colourful traditional vestments. However it is uncatholic to use a liturgy not allowed by the Church. I hope that over the next few years an increasing number of Anglican clergy will quit fooling around with the Missals and return to the Book of Common Prayer. I also hope that when they do so, they will return to the ornaments and the ceremonial of 'the second year of King Edward the Sixt' and put into effect the liturgical intentions of our Reformation.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Bridging the Gap
One of the advantages that conservative like myself have is that we usually get to sit back and work out how something is going to develop before we throw ourselves into a situation. We tend not to be 'blow about by every vain blast of doctrine' but at our best we work for continuity and stability in the Church as it preaches the Gospel to every generation. I also think it is very important for those in leadership positions in the Church to have an overview not just of what is going on in the here and now, but also the trends leading to where we are now, and we also need a certain ability to 'read the runes' of where the church is going.
Well, what I am trying to say is that Traditional Anglicans have a major problem right now. Put in simple terms we have married the spirit of the age - in our case, the 1950s - and we are very close to finding ourselves widows in the next. Increasingly we look like 'the Museum Church' not 'the Living Church' which is precisely the same problem that the Episcopal Church, which is married to the Seventies. Neither approach is bring folks to the Church, though it has to be conceeded that the Continuum is loosing people at a far slower rate than TEC. At least it seems that fifty years out of date is far enough to be somewhat timeless, not just old.
Now I am sure that by this point you are expecting a sales pitch for music groups, drum kits, "Rite 3," burlap banners, name tags, and charismatic carryings-on. Well, not quite! For a start, name tags and burlap banners are so 90s, man! Rite 3 is pretty old hat as well. That was 'happening' when I was a student in the late 1980s. No, what I am getting at is that Continuing Anglicans need to build a bridge to the culture, not that of the secular left, but that of wider Christianity in the USA. We need to have a bridge in place so that some of those who are semi-churched, the unchurched, and those who attend 'shallow churches' can cross into a fuller and deeper expression of Christianity, and in many ways, the path to doing this is through music.
I have to be honest and say that I am as apt to reach for the garlic and a crucifix when someone mentions 'praise and worship music' to me as the most rigid of Spikes. The other thing that I have realised is that the 1928 Prayer Book is not a stumbling block, but some of the music that we use - well, let us just say "Oh Dear!" We have moade the mistake - at least in the USA where we have an official hymnal - of Canonizing a Hymn Book. To an Englishman - where we have never had an official hymnal - I have to say this seems a little - erm - odd. I think we need to remind ourselves of an eighteenth century Evangelical Anglican (Whitefield? Newton? One of the Wesleys?) who said, "why should the devil have all the best tunes?" so why have we chosen to freeze our selection at one point in history omitting not just many good new songs, but many old and valuable hymns?
At University I heard and sang a lot of the then current P&W music, however I remember only two or three of them twenty years later. There is a sense in which they are musical ephemera. On the other hand, I do remember the old Wesleyan standards such as 'O for a thousand tongues to sing' ,"And can it be" and so forth, which I learned alongside the P&W music. I think you can see the case I am making - that we need to bridge the gap.
However, bridging that gap is an exercise that needs a little bit of thought. I honestly think we had it right so far as Anglicanism was concerned, when I was a student. The church I attended did P&W music until the beginning for the formal liturgy, then we had a very simple formal liturgy - with not too many men in funny frocks, and during this formal liturgy traditional hymns were used; then during Communion and after the service they used P&W music again. It seemed to bridge the gap. However, I do know one way of really fouling up the sort of bridge approach that I am taking about and that is to use the Praise Music that was current when I was a student in the late 1980s - which is precisely what so many churches do!
One interesting phenomomen that I have observed in churches that offer both traditional and more contemporary is that as folks become more committed and more comfortable with "the Church thing" they tend to move across to more traditional services. I really do not see why continuing Anglicans have such a block with letting the musical side of worship evolve while the liturgy, which does have enduring value, remains fixed. It seems to me that where there is a real need for it, many churches could benefit from having a traditional service and a slightly more contemporary one to reach out and make a new generation of Anglicans. We all know that the old ones are dying off fast enough.
At the end of the day we belong to the Church, not the Hymnal and Prayer Book Preservation Society. Our function, our great commission is to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them whatsoever things I commanded you..." Are we achieving that by clinging so firmly to everything from the past? Or do we need to build that bridge? I believe that we need to build that bridge before it is too late, and we become just another footnote in religious history.
Well, what I am trying to say is that Traditional Anglicans have a major problem right now. Put in simple terms we have married the spirit of the age - in our case, the 1950s - and we are very close to finding ourselves widows in the next. Increasingly we look like 'the Museum Church' not 'the Living Church' which is precisely the same problem that the Episcopal Church, which is married to the Seventies. Neither approach is bring folks to the Church, though it has to be conceeded that the Continuum is loosing people at a far slower rate than TEC. At least it seems that fifty years out of date is far enough to be somewhat timeless, not just old.
Now I am sure that by this point you are expecting a sales pitch for music groups, drum kits, "Rite 3," burlap banners, name tags, and charismatic carryings-on. Well, not quite! For a start, name tags and burlap banners are so 90s, man! Rite 3 is pretty old hat as well. That was 'happening' when I was a student in the late 1980s. No, what I am getting at is that Continuing Anglicans need to build a bridge to the culture, not that of the secular left, but that of wider Christianity in the USA. We need to have a bridge in place so that some of those who are semi-churched, the unchurched, and those who attend 'shallow churches' can cross into a fuller and deeper expression of Christianity, and in many ways, the path to doing this is through music.
I have to be honest and say that I am as apt to reach for the garlic and a crucifix when someone mentions 'praise and worship music' to me as the most rigid of Spikes. The other thing that I have realised is that the 1928 Prayer Book is not a stumbling block, but some of the music that we use - well, let us just say "Oh Dear!" We have moade the mistake - at least in the USA where we have an official hymnal - of Canonizing a Hymn Book. To an Englishman - where we have never had an official hymnal - I have to say this seems a little - erm - odd. I think we need to remind ourselves of an eighteenth century Evangelical Anglican (Whitefield? Newton? One of the Wesleys?) who said, "why should the devil have all the best tunes?" so why have we chosen to freeze our selection at one point in history omitting not just many good new songs, but many old and valuable hymns?
At University I heard and sang a lot of the then current P&W music, however I remember only two or three of them twenty years later. There is a sense in which they are musical ephemera. On the other hand, I do remember the old Wesleyan standards such as 'O for a thousand tongues to sing' ,"And can it be" and so forth, which I learned alongside the P&W music. I think you can see the case I am making - that we need to bridge the gap.
However, bridging that gap is an exercise that needs a little bit of thought. I honestly think we had it right so far as Anglicanism was concerned, when I was a student. The church I attended did P&W music until the beginning for the formal liturgy, then we had a very simple formal liturgy - with not too many men in funny frocks, and during this formal liturgy traditional hymns were used; then during Communion and after the service they used P&W music again. It seemed to bridge the gap. However, I do know one way of really fouling up the sort of bridge approach that I am taking about and that is to use the Praise Music that was current when I was a student in the late 1980s - which is precisely what so many churches do!
One interesting phenomomen that I have observed in churches that offer both traditional and more contemporary is that as folks become more committed and more comfortable with "the Church thing" they tend to move across to more traditional services. I really do not see why continuing Anglicans have such a block with letting the musical side of worship evolve while the liturgy, which does have enduring value, remains fixed. It seems to me that where there is a real need for it, many churches could benefit from having a traditional service and a slightly more contemporary one to reach out and make a new generation of Anglicans. We all know that the old ones are dying off fast enough.
At the end of the day we belong to the Church, not the Hymnal and Prayer Book Preservation Society. Our function, our great commission is to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them whatsoever things I commanded you..." Are we achieving that by clinging so firmly to everything from the past? Or do we need to build that bridge? I believe that we need to build that bridge before it is too late, and we become just another footnote in religious history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
