What I say may seem critical to some””especially those who want to rejoice without restraint; but, I think that, to the discerning reader, my offering will be seen as truly encouraging, by suggesting important ways to improve what has begun, which like a seed, has the potential to grow and, when growing, to manifest different features, good and bad. I want to encourage firm growth and good fruit. So here we go…
“The whole LAOS, people of God, need to be brought into this movement very quickly and very openly. Anglican history from 1785 in the new USA had the unique feature of the full involvement of the laity and this is part of its genius” —Fr. Toon
A true and absolutely CRUCIAL point. ECUSA’s slide towards apostasy reflects, as much as anything, unfaithfulness among the clergy. The slide began in seminaries, spread to the clergy, then spread through the clergy. The slide correlates with a decline in real lay leadership (i.e., lay people recognized for their own strengths by laity and clergy alike, as distinguished from lay faces nurtured by diocesan and 815 apparatchiks to serve institutionalist and revisionist agendas).
Peter Toon advises CC:
“In order to begin to face the contentious matter of women’s ordination, and as a first step. I suggest that the unique but imperfect Anglican doctrine [expounded in successive Eames Reports in the 1980s and 1990s] of Reception be re-examined and improved by the Common Cause Partnership to become at least the starting point for possible deeper conversations and relations between those who are wholly against, and those who are for, the ordination of women…It would appear that beginning from this imperfect doctrine is the only means we have right now as Anglicans of engaging in dialogue and forging understanding.”
Since some CC partners regard the ordination of women as ‘incompatible with Scripture’ (Lambeth language), and therefore as ‘sinful’, why does Dr Toon’s advise not apply in the following case?:
“In order to begin to face the contentious matter of homosexual practice, and as a first step. I suggest that the unique but imperfect Anglican doctrine [expounded in successive Eames Reports in the 1980s and 1990s] of Reception be re-examined and improved by the Common Cause Partnership to become at least the starting point for possible deeper conversations and relations between those who are wholly against, and those who are for, homosexual practice…It would appear that beginning from this imperfect doctrine is the only means we have right now as Anglicans of engaging in dialogue and forging understanding.”
A case of double-standards?
I read it. I understood it. What he is saying, don’t try to build a tower of Babble (?) spelling. Instead, let tongues of fire descend. Ok, I just laity, but I understood…..
I’m just laity….sorry…..I may have babble wrong, but I know I’m….
I seldom disagree with the Rev. Dr. Toon, but I strongly disagree with him over his assertion that a new edition of the 1662 BCP is needed in which [i]Thou[/i] should be replaced with [i]You[/i]. As he well knows, the BCP of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) is essentially the 1662 with a few minor modifications and the addition of the 1928 liturgy for the celebration of Holy Communion as an alternate. Nowhere in the REC BCP is [i]You[/i] or any of its declined variants used when referring to God in general or any member of the Trinity. No one, including the grade-schoolers in our congregation, seems to have any problem with it.
The use of the second person familiar was falling into disuse when Abp. Cranmer chose to use only for a special liturgical purpose. It is not archaic, nor is its use beyond the intelligence of the average person. It is special, liturgical language for use only when talking to God and carries with it an attitude of reverence together with a tinge of the familiarity inherent in the German use of [i]du[/i] as when a child is speaking to a parent. It is difficult to understand why Dr. Toon has turned away from what he wrote in his tract, [i]Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete[/i]. I hope he will rethink this suggestion.
Mathematicus’s advocacy on behalf of Thou over against Toon’s common sense plea for the lingua franca is a good illustration of just how hard it will be for a new Anglican thing to form in North America without countless splinters. There are just too many things about which to disagree. We might say this one is inconsequential, but, of course, not to everyone.
Woould I give in on the subject of women’s ordination if I thought we could get my province, the ACA, to join other provinces for the sake of the common good and the health of a whole church?
Would I? I dislike the notion of WO because the women priests I know have been so overbearing, so feminist agenda driven, so obsessive. And would I fear that, once in, the women would take over as they are now in TEC? Yes, I would fear it. And yet…… and yet…. There is nothing in scripture to forbid it and nothing declared there to propose it.
I suppose the proper way to answer that question is to have to proposal of unity put to me to see what I would do. And there must be many in my boat.
What would I do?
But Toon is right about one thing: the laity must be involved, for America is a from-the-ground-up society. The AC is not a democracy, but to have broad involvement is not the same thing; this is, after all, where consensus starts and whqt we need now, to go with the certainty tht scripture is the only real guide, is consensus. Larry
“The laity must be involved, for America is a from-the-ground-up society” —Larry Morse [#7]
That’s one reason. But lay involvement also provides a safeguard against unfaithful clergy. It wasn’t the laity who led ECUSA astray. See comment #1.
So much to respond to in Dr. Toon’s post!
I very much agree with his point 1. And I agree that more should be done to get the 1977 groups in. However, I’ve noticed many in those groups can be extremely (what’s a nice word?) picky, turning up their noses at groups not exactly like them. So the 1977 groups need to give unity more consideration. In other words, it’s a two way street.
I’ll be a little harder than Dr. Toon on one point: what the hey were they thinking when they used the 1979 BCP???
Oh, I forgot something. “Reception” isn’t going to fly with many in the Common Cause groups. And I, for one, doubt it should. Many of us have been there, done that, don’t want to do it again. So we should just forget about that!
Though some of Dr. Toon’s observations are basically correct as usual, I nevertheless feel I should object to his tone, timing, and a few of his conclusions.
First, although lay involvement is crucial to church health, it is time to acknowledge that the laity in TEC are in fact as guilty in the matter of apostasy as are the clergy. Furthermore, we must realize (and a Britt should know this) that the laity, whose existence necessitates the apostolate, can not and should not subvert the God given roles that bishops and priests and deacons ought to play. Remember, in America each citizen tends to consider himself a precious and infallible pope: This is an American idiosyncrasy that needs correction, not indulgence.
Second, Dr. Toon’s observations concerning liturgy are both accurate and overreaching. Yes, a standard, Anglican liturgy across the CCP would be helpful, even urgent. AND, it was a wonderful sign of hope that the 1979 rite 1 was used. Why? Considering the CANA /AMIA aversion (in some quarters) to liturgy in general, as well as the chaotic use of Kenyan and cobbled rites in other places, for the CCP leaders to agree (in their very first HOB) on the 1662 in principle, to acknowledge that they have already begun developing 1662 in “modern” English, and to actually use traditional, near Cranmarian forms – that is a significant advance which ought to be applauded – not harshly criticized.
Third, Dr. Toon’s warnings concerning WO are his most valuble criticisms. WO is the most destructive isssue in the attempt at reunification of the various factions. But, WO is already dead and dying. Newbie is right, Receptionism doesn’t fly. But in this case it has worked by confirming that WO is a very bad, unhealthy, non bene innovation. The AMiA, which is the only pro/WO group to actually study the issue theologically, has as a consequence already begun the costly process of correction – good for them and God bless them! Let’s help the rest of the groups come to the same good conclusions.
Fourth, I’d like to thank the bishops for “dressing up” and being seen in the full regalia of the apostolic office, demonstrating to the world that they are acting as bishops – shepherds of the flock authorized by Christ. If I had seen a bunch of CCP bishops in polos, sitting in the lay seats, I would have thought, “Oh no! Just a bunch of guys, unwilling to risk the office, giving us their personal sentimental opinions and rubbing elbows with the constituency!” But by processing in vestments they are bishops in office and speak with the authority of their God given office.
So, thanks, bishops, for lugging your episcopal stuff all the way to Pittsburgh. Cast Dr. Toon’s scoffing scorn aside – I am grateful for your public office and your personal courage to exercise it.
I think that the laity have a very big part to play in the church, most members are lay folks. That said, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the laity are innocent victims of the clergy. My (limited) experience in the Episcopal Church has been of a laity that are in general pretty mildly committed to prayer, study, evangelism and outreach. About 35% of them bother to show up on any given Sunday. Most approach the church as consumers and few are invested in evergetic mission and ministry. While the same is no doubt true for lots of priests (except they show up on sunday) I do not think that makes laity innocent of the current problems. In my mind, the re-appraissers are the instigators, but the vast majority of the indifferent are the real problem. There is, after all, a reason why this virulent strain heretical Christian has thrived in our Episcopal Church…
“Although lay involvement is crucial to church health, it is time to acknowledge that the laity in TEC are in fact as guilty in the matter of apostasy as are the clergy” —RazorbackPadre [#11]
This is a bit like saying that the French peasantry was just as guilty as King Louis XIV for Louis’ wars of aggression.