And because of the pressure of modern communication, especially e-mail, the ancient virtues of careful discrimination and godly patience have been made nearly impossible to exercise. At the same time the internal recognition by the African Provinces that their position has been totally reversed from being the subjects of colonialism to calling the tune in the Global Anglican Family has caused a kind of irrational euphoria to arise in their midst and cause them to take actions that they may regret down the line.
Thus though Lambeth Conference 2008 (the chief Instrument of Unity of the Anglican Communion) is not far away there is not the readiness amongst the seceders in North America or by their friends abroad to restrain actions until that date””in fact there is not the readiness on the part of four African Provinces to wait even until September 30, 2007, when TEC Bishops are required by the Primates’ Meeting to come clean on where they stand and will stand.
There were all kinds of other possible ways of caring for the seceders from TEC and ACC by overseas bishops as we all waited patiently for Lambeth 2008, after which there could have been if necessary concerted action. Though TEC and ACC have behaved badly and continue to do so, the exercise of Christian virtue by the displaced and the seceders could have been increased by the abundant grace of God in this crisis. Perseverance and patience (see Romans 5:1ff) could have been in place in the relatively short wait until Lambeth 2008””and as long afterward as necessary to set in motion healing and edifying actions and institutions.
It is much easier to destroy a house than built a new one; it is much easier to consecrate bishops and send them into the vast territory of the USA and Canada than it is, in a couple of years time, to bring them all together into unity in a new province””unity together with former bishops of TEC, of REC, of APA, of the Canadian Church and of various Continuing Anglican Groups.
It is possible””in fact likely if we take the history of religion in the USA as a guide””that we are now witnessing the permanent multiplication of Anglican jurisdictions in North America, adding to those caused by the schisms of 1873 and 1977 (the REC and the variety of Continuing Anglican Churches).
This is extremely sad and brings grief and sorrow to genuine Anglican hearts. It seems as though the whole Anglican Way has been blown apart not only by the infidelity of leaders in TEC & ACC but also by the excessive zeal of African Provinces.
The Africans were among those who practically begged ECUSA not to proceed with the Robinson fiasco. They waited patiently for some sign that ECUSA would realize the folly of their ways.
While they waited, the orthodox continued to be marginalized and their souls and those of their children put in danger by anti-Christian teachings from the top levels of ECUSA.
Dr. Toon, speaking as one whose church is now gratefully protected by an African archbishop, I can say that the Africans did not come riding in to raid churches from ECUSA; it was we who sought that protection. They came to the aid of those who were surrounded and in danger of extinction.
I would far rather be part of a splinter group than be part of ECUSA. It’s safer for my soul.
The article link is posted at the bottom of the excerpt above. Please clink on the link to find its source–ed.
Good grief, this is getting annoying. Here we have a link straight to the article in question, at a website owned and run by the article’s author, and Emily is back with her inchoate conspiracy talk. What is it this time, Emily? Do you think Martyn Minns wrote it? Or do you just think Martyn Minns failed to file a tax return last year?
The Piper’s calling the Toon….
[blockquote]It is much easier to destroy a house than built a new one; it is much easier to consecrate bishops and send them into the vast territory of the USA and Canada than it is, in a couple of years time, to bring them all together into unity in a new province—unity together with former bishops of TEC, of REC, of APA, of the Canadian Church and of various Continuing Anglican Groups.[/blockquote]
The one thing that distresses me more than anything else about what Mr. Toon says is that TEC has been shedding christians for years and years. Now, finally, we have a possibility of gathering up the crumbs and Mr. Toon is on the edge of dispair.
Yes, I worry about what he worries about. I plead with God to bring us together and not to scatter us to the winds, but I want to trust to that Providence that as we seek Jesus Christ we will also seek each other’s faces. I already see the benefits of the recognition of various orthodox of each other. I have said for years that the orthodox christians have more in common with each other than they do with their respective denominations.
I am excited!
There’s much wisdom in what Dr. Toon writes. Still, for parishes in hostile diocese, there was little else to do but seek protection elsewhere.
It is not easy to be a voice crying in the wilderness for years and then find that voice being drowned out.
This article is on the mark. Too many new Bishop!
I would think that a definition of Orthodoxy is probably in order since there appears to be more than a few versions out there.
Common Cause, FiF, the ACN, REC, APA etc. have me a bit confused in that the questions that come to mind are, which prayer book ? WO or not ? I have heard it said that that these are deal breakers by some or are they ?
The APCK, ACC and the UEC have been out there for 30 years or so and have never to my knowledge compromised their beliefs and recent events now clearly show are unified and are not making deals, ie my friends they didnt need to go overseas, there has been true orthodoxy on these shores for a long time.
Your help in answering these questions is appreciated.
God Bless
The precious few historical accounts of vital growth in North American Anglicanism usually feature an energetic, mission minded bishop. John Henry Hobart in New York is an archtype. Here in South Dakota one of his descendants, William Hobart Hare, did some wonderful work.
At least one General Convention (I think 1835?) got it right – the whole church should be a missionary venture, based on the New Testament model, with bishops following the example of the first apostles. Out of this we got people like Jackson Kemper.
So, the initial proliferation of bishops under African jurisdiction might be a good strategy for an Anglican missionary movement. They are not building cathedrals and bureaucracies, but seeking to build Christian communities.
BTW Hobart’s motto was “evangelical faith and catholic order.” He also used Confirmation as an important rite (as did Hare in SD – over 7,000 L/Dakota were Confirmed during his missionary episcopate).
TEC has dumped all pretense to evangelical faith, and holds a rigid but corrupt form of “catholic order” (now nothing more than bylaws, canons and titles).
So, on balance, I disagree with Toon. I understand his worry about Episcopal proliferation, but I don’t think that Common Cause is creating bishops in the same bureaucratic model of which TEC has been guilty.
I think that what Peter Toon is saying here (and I would agree with him) is that the Africans ought not to be consecrating AMERICAN bishops right now (i.e. no CANA, no AMiA, no Atwood or Guernsey) as that is premature. The Africans could have achieved the same protective oversight by continuing to offer oversight under African bishops (i.e. what Uganda and Kenya were doing prior to Guernsey and Atwood). The oversight issue would have been taken care of, but there would not have been the creation of new jurisdictions and bishops that will be very difficult to meld together into one.
10. Timothy Fountain”
Something in your post caught my attention:
“…with bishops following the example of the first apostles. Out of this we got people like Jackson Kemper.”
Bishop Kemper is an important figure here in Southwest Wisconsin. Back when Bishop kemper was active, this was the “Wild West” with gambling, saloons, gunfights in the streets, claimjumping, and the like. I wondered what kind of man he was and you have given me some brief, but profound, background.
Thanks.
Peter Toon is quite knowledgeable and a well versed, prolific writer but he always seems to have an ax to grind about the realignment to come. More often than not his pieces begin for me with great enthusiasm but by the end they tire me.
9. Ron+:
The Modern Liberals (re-appraisers) in TEC bristle whenever one tries to tie any theology to them – they are too large for any one theology, is my preci’ of their arguement. But it is the Modern Liberal which has a stiflingly narrow theology and it is the orthodox that have the broad view.
Just get used to it.
WO and 1978/9 BCP would be a minority in any new Province in USA. The question is can those who hold to WO and the new prayer book co-exist with those folk that left earlier.
One should remember that Dr. Toon would have preferences as he writes however there is much we should not quickly dismiss. Dr Tighe has often given a overview of the Continuing Churches and the troubles and fissiparousness of that movement. Thus Dr. Toon is merited in his reservations.
I believe it is wise for us to look past our own biasses as we read this article that we may heed the warning, praying specifically for unity in the Common Cause partners and working to minimize the tensions that will invariably exist with such a diverse group each holding the line in their unique situation but maybe not appreciating the efforts of another as much as they should. Pretend unity is easy, we’ve seen that for years inside ECUSA, forging true Common Ground and bringing reconciliation where needed and building earnest relationship is hard work. If all these groups are merely defined by what they stand against, I’d expect a repeat of history from thirty years ago, so I believe there is substance to this warning, maybe not agreeing with the assessment the problem and solution, but good to have a watchman give an alarm that these thing may be considered.
Dr. Toon seems to have caught the “schism is worse than heresy” disease from somewhere with a touch of “blame it on the uppity Africans,” to boot!
I agree, it would have been a good thing to wait until Lambeth, but Dr. Williams, with his precipitous invitation strategy torpedoed all hope that Lambeth 2008 would have any meaning. In addition, the agenda which has been bandied about promises more “touchy-feeliy,” “listening to sacred stories,” and manipulative Bible studies which is how TECusa go into the shape it is in now. In short, Dr. Toon, do not blame the Africans. The responsibility clearly lies with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office who have fought any attempts at godly discipline for these wayward provinces with dilatory tactics, commissions that are rendered ineffective by the mandatory “balancing” of the membership, and other exercises at delay, obfuscation, and classical Anglican Fudge.
The sad truth is that Western corruption and surrender to the culture has done more damage to Anglicanism than any actions by the Global South.
Well, my parish has a [i]temporary[/i] Ugandan bishop. We are one of five in Southern California, and the relationship has been wonderful! He has been visiting for the last week and celebrated with us the planting of a congregation in the South Bay area. When he leaves California, he will be visiting another new plant on the opposite coast. Somehow, that doesn’t fit my idea of “raiding” TEC of Episcopalians. This is [i]evangelism.[/i] We were rescued by the Church of Uganda, pure and simple. We couldn’t wait four years until 2008, and now that we’re in a safe place spiritually, we can proceed with finding the lost sheep that TEC has neglected, driven away, or who belonged to no flock at all. When we were part of TEC, founding a mission was almost impossible. It had to be done by the diocese, and the red tape was impenetrable. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember hearing about a new mission in the diocese in years.
And how’s this for global Anglicanism? The priest in charge of the Torrance plant is Nigerian and the one in the East is Indian.
# 18. Sue Martinez,
I had the pleasure of hearing Bishop Orambi speak when he was in VA on Saturday. What a leader – what a preacher!!! He was in front of a mostly CANA gathering, and he spoke fervently about the need for the congregations under the protection of off-shore bishops to come together.
#11. jamesw,
The congregations under offshore bishops are spread out nationwide. We cannot expect a bishop to come from Africa or Bolivia for every ordination or confirmation. These are not managerial bishops, they are among the people offering pastoral support (what bishops are supposed to do).
It seems to me, if we ask the Global South for shelter, we are obliged to play by Global South rules. Democratically elected bishops did not prevent the present woes in TEC.
An ongoing theme among many reasserters is that “he who is not with us is against us.” I hope this article proves that there are painfully orthodox, reasserting, traditionalist Anglicans like Dr. Toon who think that the proliferation of offshore jurisdictions operating in North America is a potential disaster for historic Anglicanism. Those of us who have been suggesting caution are not all raging reasserters. Some of us simply draw different lines about when emptying the bath involves throwing out the baby.
“Democratically elected bishops did not prevent the present woes in TEC.”
Judith, thank you for your observation. Some would consider it no stretch to say “democratically elected bishops” are the core of the problem. That is to say, democracy leads to pandering.
#21
Dale,
Yes, yes, yes! This is a discussion that very much needs to occur. The sense of caution to which you point is a valid place from which scores of orthodox Anglicans are working.
Very sad piece by Dr. Toon. Very sad indeed.
To say that I disagree with Dr. Toon on this would be an understatement.
Blaming the Global South Archbishops and casting them as eager raiders prospecting for some American goodies (souls) is VERY, VERY UNKIND AND UNTRUE.
How has it come to this, from a knowledgeable person of Dr. Toon’s stature?
Has anyone forgotten Plano ’03 (I was there in person) and how over 2,000 “horrified”, “dejected”, “embittered”, and embattled North American Anglicans (mostly priests and deacons) were crying out to the Lord and to the Global to come our aid us and to attend to the “spiritual, theological, and pastoral emergency” in the North American Churches of US and Canada?
I sincerely think Dr. Toon needs to apologize to the Godly Archbishops and to the new bishops for this sad piece.
Is Dr. Toon asking for an unending process in this matter – in which one meeting succeeds another and one deadline replaces another, with souls imperiled all the while? Or does he, in his right mind, think that (attending) Lambeth 08 is the magic wand that would bring TEcUSA back to her senses and to Godliness?
I was even thinking that the appointment and consecration of the new North American bishops by the God-honoring, Bible-believing Global South Archbishops are coming three years too late.
Spiro
(Arlington, TX)
#21 — I think you miss Dr. Toon+’s argument: “Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya could have stood behind Rwanda’s Anglican Mission in the Americas and given it full support in order to maintain unity in intervention,” so it’s not quite the other arguments (those favoring to stay and fight). It is a good question why each group did as it has done instead of working in concert and one several have raised without much answer.
There probably many reasons for logistics to personality why folks didn’t go with AMiA. While this article does offer some good thoughts, my criticism is that it’s a little late now. We need to focus on where we are currently while heeding the lessons of history and begin to move forward.
This is a pretty incorrect piece for Dr. Harmon to post and I am glad he did. The number of groups and the number of bishops they have recently consecrated is alarming.
PS–Is the all saint pawley’s island suit against the diocese of South Carolina resolved yet?
It’s pretty clear that the GS primates are working very closely together to prevent chaos. All you had to do was consider who was present at the recent consecrations in Kenya and Uganda. Weren’t there [i]nine[/i] Primates, not even counting Abp. Akinola? I know that Abp. Orombi, when he said there were 33 congregations under his care also said that others had applied. I don’t think that all have been accepted. The point is, [i]They have a plan.[/i]
I know that our decision to ask Abp Orombi to rescue us three years ago was based on a long-standing relationship with Uganda. The choice of a particular bishop was his. We had sent a SOMA mission there at least 15 years ago, and Abp. Orombi had spoken to the AAC chapter in Los Angeles in 2003. As I said earlier, this arrangement is TEMPORARY. After Bishop Guernsey takes over as our local (American) bishop, our relationship with our Ugandan bishop will become missionary, not pastoral. It is not a secret that the structure for a new Anglican province is emerging, if it’s needed. I don’t know how that will look, but I can tell you, we’re sure not going to go back to our TEC bishop! No way!)
One thing I should also mention is that Abp. Orombi (and I imagine, the other GS primates with ex-TEC parishes) will not allow their bishops to accept any money directly. He wisely foresaw that as the relationship developed, we Americans would want to be generous when we saw their great need. Someone asked me last week, “I suppose that there will be a special offering when the bishop visits.” I explained that there would not be, and why–and there wasn’t. All monies go through the provincial office. So, our bishop is not here because of what we can do for him or his diocese, but because of what he can do for us. And how he has blessed us!
How many of you laity can say that your bishop knows your name, even if they live closer than 9,000 miles away? Mine does, and I’m not even a leader in my parish. I love that man!
[blockquote] The point is, They have a plan. [/blockquote]
Yes, and a schedule, which does not involve protracted waiting. The first part of that schedule is less than 6 days away, when the Common Cause Council of Bishops will gather up [i]all[/i] these African-consecrated bishops, [i]plus[/i] the Continuing Church (and other) bishops [i]plus[/i] the ACN bishops.
You can believe they have a plan. And it will be soon–very soon–time to put it into effect.
It is much easier to tear down a house than build a new one. True, but who should be willing to live in a house where the plague has been? This is the case in hand, and when the cry comes, “Bring out your dead” we would as soon not be among those numbered. Patience here is not a virtue, if someone is telling to live there, but will allow you to leave in a couple of years. Larry
I hope and pray that the Common Cause meeting is a smashing success. I think that if used correctly the new Bishops are necessary in order to provide geographic Episcopal oversight – if so 20-30 would not be excessive. The Anglican District of Virginia could be used as the prototype for geographic organization while the Churches remain in their respective (Provinces/Diocese) eccesiastically while a formal union (and the theological issues hashed out) is formed. Hence there could be an Anglican District of Colorado under which Cana and AMIA and continuing Church parishes could muster. I read here once that in India the Province uesed to be known as the Federation of Anglican Churches in India – I wonder if that is to be the model chosen. On WO could the new province have separate priestly orders like the Catholics – ie Jesuits/Franciscans perhaps then those who do not recognize WO could afford them deacon status while those that do could recognize them as Priests (merely a question not meaning to create umbrage or be labeled a heretic)?
Dr Toon would be much happier if someone would just get around to consecrating him.
#32
That was a cheap shot and probably utterly untrue. Dr. Toon does a great deal of work of inestimable value to Anglicanism in North America and it is unfortunate that he should be subjected to slurs like this.
#32 Cheap shot.
I truly am not invested in Dr. Toon in any personal way. But I know that he represents a point of departure into our present troubles that is greatly needed and all but absent. Toon represent a kind of Anglicanism that if it dies will make Anglicanism itself worthless and unjustifiable. Toon gets the Prayer Book — really. He gets the Anglican ethos — really. Most of the rest, frankly, are working from the fringes and will create a new animal that will speak to neither Cranmer nor Newman. I see that new animal coming and I weep.
Albany*,
Well said. I’m right there with you.
“Dr. Toon does a great deal of work of inestimable value to Anglicanism in North America” I entirely disagree. The gospel according to Toon is a museum piece which serves Anglicans very badly. I am only sorry that it is taken at all seriously by anyone.
36
That is probably the most rediculous thing I’ve read on a T19 thread. Other than saying that, it is not worthy of further comment.
#36 – Only judging by your two posts, you seem very spiteful towards the man, I’m not sure you have grasp the Gospel. Even if you disagree with him, your comments are more personal attacks on a created being than a cirque of his logic or action.
Vincent Coles, if you are going to criticize Dr. Toon, please provide concrete examples of what you disagree with re: his words or actions. Otherwise, we elves agree, your comments come across as mere cheap shots and personal attacks, which we try to keep off the threads here.
This goes for all commenters on all sides. and all threads. It’s blog policy.
–elfgirl
Without producing an extended commentary, I have seen Toon’s writings in many places over many years, and rate it very badly. As a theologian myself I find his work conservative in the wrong sense, reiterative and asserting a Golden Age version of Anglicanism that never existed in England, let alone anywhere else.
The world of the BCP and Articles is demonstrably over in England, and there will be no return to it. There may be “continuing” pockets here and there (as there are in Scotland) but do you really think it possible to renew Anglicanism if it is saddled with a liturgy and a confession which have their place in history?
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and for ever, and not bound (thankfully) to the cultural expression of the English 16th century. New wine needs new wineskins, and thank God, someone in Africa is providing them.
——-
[i]Thanks Vincent. This is helpful for understanding your perspective. Really appreciate your follow up! — elfgirl[/i]
It is precisely such confidence and dismissive stance that I find so unsettling. We certainly are getting a lot of “cultural expression” right now, wouldn’t you say? As for the new wine, I think that some have forgotten the wineskin is the Prayer Book.
#40 Well thank you for sharing you presumed “evangelical lens” that you read Dr Toon+. I must confess that I’d finding a hard time desiring being in the same room with you because of your contempt of people who have a high view of liturgy. Thankfully, the Lord has done an odd work allowing the electing +KJS for now it’s the Anglo-Catholics who may outrun and trample the evangelicals out the door, if merely by necessity. I guess in an odd way you have proven Dr Toon+’s concern for the question if there will be unity in this reformation movement depends greatly if folks like you are willing to stop throwing stones at Anglo-Catholics or continue spilling venom towards folks who may be different than you in practice of worship.
I hardly think Dr Toon is an Anglo-Catholic, KAR. You will find him opposed to most of the things which define Anglicans as Anglo-Catholics. It’s confusion like this which makes me wonder what the chances are for N American anglicanism.
Albany, I don’t suppose you have ever used the 1662 Prayer Book for divine worship week by week in your parish church, but perhaps you could assure me to the contrary. If you are thinking of some other prayer book, you have already conceded your argument. Anglicanism has been adapting itself constantly since the Reformation, and the 1662 BCP has not been exempt.
And would you regard it as a “cheap shot” if I were to comment briefly and adversely on Matthew Fox, or Frank Griswold?
“And would you regard it as a “cheap shot†if I were to comment briefly and adversely on Matthew Fox, or Frank Griswold?”
Honestly, probably not, but that more a reflection of the darken, disgusting sin that lurks in my fallen heart than it does about the virtue or lack therein of the comment.
Albany, I don’t suppose you have ever used the 1662 Prayer Book for divine worship week by week in your parish church, but perhaps you could assure me to the contrary. If you are thinking of some other prayer book, you have already conceded your argument. Anglicanism has been adapting itself constantly since the Reformation, and the 1662 BCP has not been exempt.
In point of fact, I have used the 1662 week after week in liturgy — albeit as a child. Your post otherwise confuses me quite a bit. Where did I or any poster on this page speak of holding fast to 1662? Rather, the issue is the Prayer Book tradition in its full weight, orthodoxy, and dignity onto God.
Speaking of which, I trust we can tone this discussion down a bit.
In my church we use 1662 and Rite I on alternating Sundays. Frankly, I would prefer 1928 as a logical American expression of the classical Prayer Book tradition, but yield to 1662 out of a desire to have true common worship with the majority of reasserting Anglicans worldwide. I have read nearly everything Dr. Toon has written over the last three years or so and, while I am significantly more High Church and tend to a more Anglo-Catholic point of view, I find his defense of the classic BCP, and the Anglican Way, compelling. He definitely is not by any stretch an Anglo-Catholic. He is, however, absolutely correct in his critique of the banality of “contemporary” liturgical innovation.
#45 . The problem with “the Prayer Book Tradition” is that it is also claimed by TEC bishops such as Gene Robinson and F J Schori, as well as Dr Toon. They have maintained all the “outward and visible signs”, as it were, just like the Continuum and Common Cause and the wider Anglican Communion, although WO is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the BCP and is not recognised in many places.
There have been a number of studies over the years of what constitutes Anglicanism, such as Sykes’ book, [i]The Integity of Anglicanism[/i] which discerns a common liturgical thread deriving from the Prayer Book.
The problem runs much deeper than that, however. In the absence of an extended confessional document of its own, the Church of England and its offspring simply evolved in response to prevailing circumstances. The earlier prayer books were replaced by 1662, which in turn was not uniformly observed and partly disregarded. The 1928 book was never legal in England.
In these troubled times new definitions of Anglicanism are called for, and that must mean reliance on a wider orthodox tradition than Anglicana Ecclesia and its progeny. The Oxford Movement looked to the patristic period for its theology, and to Rome for its ritual. In turn those days have come and gone, but the principle of looking beyond the Prayer Book remains worth testing.
Orthodox Anglicanism (to use such a term for the moment by way of argument) needs to establish itself afresh, and one way of uniting the various strands might be to devise a confessional statement based on the Nicene Creed, together with a church order to which all formally subscribe. It would be an heir to the former Anglicanism, rather than a recapitulation of some imaginary status quo artificially fixed in the second year of King Edward VI, or 1662, or 1928.
There are immense difficulties in the way and nobody doubts that, I think. How can there be one body when parts of it at present admit women to holy orders, an action which is simply not recognised by another part? Will the ordination of women cease in order to form a united Church? Will casual divorce and annulment cease in order to restore marriage discipline?
Orthodoxy has not been maintained by the Prayer Book tradition, which has unfortunately focused on the outward forms rather than the doctrines conveyed, and in most of Britain, as in most of the world, the Prayer Book is either a distant memory or a reference book. It won’t bear the weight of the new Church which the times require.
It continues to draw in my parish — and precisely those whom it is alleged not to reach. Frankly, “the new Church which the times require” is exactly what so many are fleeing and [i]in fact[/i] finding — sometimes again — in BCP.
#47 — I might agree with your critique of Anglicanism not having a confession however your attack on it as the source of all sorts of ills I find quite unBiblical, if fact that you would desire to make such a claim without evidence of how a practice is against God, in it’s self is violation of the letter & spirit of 1 Cor 8, 1 Cor 12:12-26, 1 Cor 13, Prov 6:19, John 17:20-23 and even if you disagree with Dr. Toon+ Matt 5:43&43;should hold true for you are risking Matt 5:21&22;1John4:8 and forgetting Matt 12:36. If your in favor of Evangelicalism, I’d hope Scripture might be a foundation to be upheld by example first.
Vincent Coles, you are very knowledgeable however that can puff up. Toon can be the same and I must confess to agreeing with #13 DDW+ “More often than not his pieces begin for me with great enthusiasm but by the end they tire me.” However, I’m not in a ‘conversation’ (the most overused word of the day) with him, but I am you. The level of contempt you hold for those who prefer liturgy, specifically the 1662 form, is not very attractive and in fact begs the question if you well you know the Lord, for John warn of the man who says he knows God but hates his brother. Is you disdain for 1662 BCP and those who promote it worth hells fire? That is the direction uncompromising attitude you initially began will lead if the Scripture are true.
#49. You make so many false assumptions that it is impossible to respond properly on a blog. But “the source of all sorts of ills” – not so. “Contempt for…liturgy.” Not so. “Specifically…1662”. Not so.
As I noted earlier there are exceptions, but few growing churches use the 1662 BCP, whether Catholic or Evangelical. None in Britain that I can think of. I would rather people saved their souls than pin any hopes on maintaining a liturgical museum.
#48 And you have not answered my main argument, that TEC claims to be firmly within the “Prayer Book tradition” (whatever that is). Something new is needed. It seems to me that God is doing something new in AMiA and the African-sponsored bishops. Out of the wreck of TEC a better Anglicanism will emerge, if it holds fast to the essentials of the Christian faith, Holy Scripture, the Great Commission, the Nicene Creed and Holy Order. The 1662 BCP is not an article of faith to be counted among those essentials.
# Apologies for making false presumptions. I use that word verses assumption because I came to a logical guess about what your position was by the use of your words. Specifically as given in #40, so you may desire to ponder what your doing to communicate an idea you don’t mean.
I do think you are confusing Dr. Toon+’s other articles (this one seems to complain that there is not more unity in intervention, which above I already said his article has a valid point but late). His other works seem to tout the BCP as our statement of faith, to many extents he has a point as Orthodox and Coptics often point to their liturgy. Your point in #47 would be complaining that SBC Baptist is not unified by their Statement of Faith and could easily not believe it, which I’d agree but I don’t think the Statement of Faith is the issue, it could be fine. When the liberals hid behind BCP they are bearing false witness, for BCP has a lot of good theology in it and help me return from my youthful wondering as I actually pondered it.
Prayer Book tradition is to include Scripture and the Creeds. As the Creeds are base on Scripture and help draw out concepts that are already there, so the Prayer Book is drawn from Scripture. As for the Africans, I know many have a Prayer Book as well. Dr. Toon+ was in Jacksonville last winter handing out copies of 1662 in modern language and was well received (those some Continuing Church folks were very vocal and favored 1928), he has a connection with AMiA (thus his basis in the article). The Common Cause Partnership articles require some allegiance to Prayer Book to define them as Anglican and so does FACA. So it seems those who would not take your position are in charge and using the Prayer Book as a unifying force (not opposed to Scripture but in concert {as opposed to what might define a Bible believing Methodist or Presbyterian})
FYI – you made a fallacy of a false dilemma through out these conversations. I fully agree people need to be save and under the instruction of Scripture, but that has nothing to do with “pin any hopes on maintaining a liturgical museum.” Your ask the wrong thing of a tool to do. It could easily be compared to saying, “I would rather people saved their souls than have the red carpet.”
If this id not what you are attempting to say, I again apologize. However this is how your words are being received.
#50
The fact that TEC bishops claim to adhere to the prayer book tradition is neither here nor there. They are not being truthful when they make that claim. They also claim to be faithful to the Gospel, which is patently untrue but we don’t turn around and say that makes the Gospel compromised and irrelevant to a renewed Anglicanism. Following Holy Scripture, the Great Commission, the Nicean Creed, and Holy Order certainly make one a Christian, but NOT necessarily an Anglican. To be an Anglican, one must have the BCP, Ordinal, and the Articals of Religion. I realize you are apparently coming from a British perspective, so perhaps you don’t understand that the “prayer book” TEC uses is the 1979 book that is a major departure from the classic prayer book tradition. While its Rite I is very close to 1662 and 1928, in most diocese, only Rite II is used and that is a completely different animal. Holy Baptism, the Pastoral Offices, and the Ordinal bear little resemblence to anything seen in the history of Anglicanism. When TEC says they are adhering to the prayer book tradition, it is this new and alien “prayer book” to which they refer. Its theology is NOT in the tradition of the Anglican Way.
#51. You need to read more carefully. This is how [i]you[/i] are receiving what you are reading. Let me spell it out. The Prayer Book is not essential either to salvation or to Anglicans. The gospel imust not to be defined or restricted to local cultural norms, not even those of Tudor England.
#52. I am well aware of the 1979 BCP. What you may not know is that in England very little use is made of the 1662 book, 1928 was never lawful, and virtually all parishes now use “Common Worship”. In Scotland and Wales we have our own liturgies. The Ordinal is no longer in use, and very few people indeed know what the Articles are, let alone have any knowledge of them, only those of us from a much older generation. I have not seen a BCP service for 25 years in Scotland. We are however still Anglicans.
None of the orthodox American parishes I know use the BCP (Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical) but they are growing and still Anglican. None of the AMiA missionary congregations so far as I know uses the BCP, despite Dr Toon’s urgings.
Why use an abacus when you can use a calculator? Why hinder mission for the sake of a Prayer Book which was designed to be contemporary, but has long ceased to be so?
#53 — “The Prayer Book is not essential either to salvation” — Agreed!
“to Anglicans.” — Debatable, what is Anglicanism?
“You need to read more carefully” — Ditto, my friend and brother.
Article 2 subsection 1 of “The Articles of The Common Cause Partnership” as passed by all ACN dioceses and partners except CANA (which has not held their first convention yet). The first section of Article 2 for “The Articles of The Federation of Anglican Churches (and Ministries) in the Americas.” AMiA is a member of both.
I’m sorry to inform you that you are simply give information that is not accurate. These are times of flux however your person views are not the direction the movement is going and in a few years you could be completely bearing false witness about these groups.
“The gospel imust not to be defined or restricted to local cultural norms, not even those of Tudor England.” — Amen, fully agreed, actually this has never been a part of my disagreement with you. However it is a charge *YOU* seem to make.
Before Christ, I urge you to drop elevating your personal preferences to salvific levels, for you are actually doing the more Gospel harm. A Prayer Book is the what it is and the message of the Good New is found in it but also in many other traditions. A God fearing Methodist and even Catholics or Baptist have the Good News in them to share.
Again a false dilemma that you are only using to alienate as you advance a preference. I find it extremely offense that you would accuse of such.
Before Christ, I urge you to drop elevating your personal preferences to salvific levels, for you are actually doing the Gospel more harm.
#54 You really are going off at extraordinary tangents. Do you not understand what “false witness” means?
Try again to read my posts. My view is that new Anglican churches should not saddle themselves with the cultural norms of the 16th century. Cranmer expressly intended his liturgy to be contemporary and so should we. This is not “false witness” but the view of a 21st century theologian accustomed to the 1662 BCP, the 1928 BCP, and numerous versions, illegal and legal of the BCP, over many years of life as an Anglican. My view is that it has run its course.
The [i]Articles[/i] to which I referred are the [i]XXXIX Articles of Religion[/i], not the Articles of Association of AMiA.
#55. One of the basic principles of Anglicanism, historically speaking (since TEC has ignored it) is that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. [Article VI if you wish to look it up]. This in itself ought to indicate that however useful in its own time, the 1662 Prayer Book, not being contained in or prescribed by Holy Scripture, is not necessary to salvation.
Believe it or not, I have read your post and addressing the points in them. I don’t think you’re returning the favor.
You keep making a false argument of Prayer Book replacing Scripture. It never was intended to do that and anyone is one who abuses it from it’s intended purpose.
—-
If you read the documents I recommended you’d see that your post #53 is not accurate (or even hinted at in #40) to the direction Common Cause, while I presume you are speaking out of vincible ignorance, you’re now hereby informed that the Prayer Book is referenced:
[blockquote] 6) We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.[/blockquote]
From the “Theological Statement of Common Cause Parntership”
I am familiar with the 39 Articles, thank you for the encouragement to review. Did not confuse your premise rather gave you two documents that refuted your claim. You did not look them up rather return to a point which we did not disagree, in fact I said your continue use is to actually do a harm – in effect your statements say ‘those people who use Prayer Books are not part of the elect.’ If you read my statement I allowed not only Anglican like yourself but Catholics to Baptist to be a possible part of the elect. I believe that expresses two extremes that proves your continue justification are unnecessary for Scripture. That’s not a part of our disagreement, nor I believe Dr. Toon’s or other here. I think you have grossly mischaracterized others position then attack it as a strawman. That is where risking being false witness is arising. Maybe try a different approach or as requested dropping accusation that someone who disagrees with you on the Prayer Book is trying to devalue Scripture. Some could, but it possible to not, therefore you do not have a valid logical argument in the formal sense of the word.
I would encourage you to read the Books of James and 1 John. In your zealousness for Scripture, which is good, you can violate some of the very principles set forth in it. I’d encourage you to read the passages I listed in #49.
#57. I have not said any of the things which you imagine.
I am signing off this discussion at this point.
#56
As KAR says, nobody is saying that the BCP is necessary for salvation. We ARE saying it is necessary for being Anglican. The fact that many parishes within the Anglican Communion don’t use it is neither here nor there. It remains the official standard for public worship and by deviating from it, parishes render themselves susceptible to error which in now very widespread, particularly in the churches of the west.
For the vast majority of its 345 years, the BCP has been decidedly uncontemporary in language, yet it transcended race and culture to spread Anglicanism across the globe.
I wonder why you consider yourself an Anglican, since you place no value on its distinctives.
#59. You still have not got the point. Churches which use the Prayer Book as well as Churches which keep it as an “official standard” have not been kept by it from error. TEC (or PECUSA as it was) managed to introduce casual divorce and annulment before 1979, along with WO. Neither can be justified according to the traditional Anglican formularies, but it was done. And I don’t see many here repudiating those things, indeed there are numbers who fully support both.
The Scottish Episcopal Church came into being long before 1662 and it is Anglican. The BCP has been largely abandoned in England and elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. Does that disqualify the Church of England from being Anglican? What was the status of Anglican churches in the USA after independence when the 1662 BCP was no longer required? How can you be Anglican without taking an oath of loyalty to The Queen?
Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher of blessed memory once said that as Anglicans, “We have no doctrine of our own. . .We only possesses the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, and these Creeds we hold without addition or diminution. We stand firm on that Rock.”
I do not consider myself an Anglican any longer as I have no Anglican Church to go to. Of course I can find the “Anglican distinctives” at the local church – the outward forms of architecture, robes, a liturgy bearing a faint family resemblance to the 1928 Prayer Book, a priest in the Anglican succession. But she is divorced and remarried, preaches regularly about gay rights, and rarely about God, and the diocese is in a fellowship arrangement with one of TEC’s loonier bishops.
I want to have an Anglicanism that holds and teaches the faith as envisaged by Dr Fisher. There are numerous provinces which do and they are sending bishops to TEC to restore that faith, not to reinvent the British Empire or the Act of Uniformity. It’s time we had AMiA at work in Scotland.
I regret that the real drift has been lost in space.
#60 Thank you for your post. I share your regard for Archbishop Fisher. It is my annoyance at the thought that such right-headedness is now seen as quaint foolishness that makes all but give up hope. Your parish is what happens when we lose such a vision of Anglicanism.
# 60 I thought you were out of here? (Meaning I think you demand “You still have not got the point” but never attempt to understand ours … is that your approach to evangelism?)
63. I have nothing more to say to you.
Very well, I do pray you’d look at your “We got it, you need it, look out world here we come” approach, for Gospal cowboys make it very difficult for those trying to reach the lost whether in 1662 parishes or raise your hand type. The message is always more important than form. One day, you (as I) will be held to account for your words, even on T19 against Dr.Toon+ or those of us who may appreciate traditions. One day I hope someone will wake you up to the burden of the communicator in speaking.