2008/04 - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and also The Resurrection of the Son of God

Greetings in Christ, risen from the dead! As I write this, we are still celebrating our Lord’s resurrection. Indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is of eternal significance and is to be celebrated throughout the year as the source of Christian faith, hope and love. Our right standing with holy God is a matter of Jesus having been "delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25).

With this in mind, two new books have been added to our library by means of a kind gift. They are Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham and The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright. Both Bauckham and Wright are Anglican Christians. Bauckham teaches New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, while Wright, who has taught New Testament at McGill, Cambridge and Oxford, is bishop of Durham. Both authors have published many books; Wright, in particular, has written so many books at such a rapid pace since the mid-90s that it is difficult to keep track of his efforts. His works have included everything from light to heavy-weight studies of Christian essentials. Worthy of special notice is his ongoing Christian Origins and the Question of God project, now halfway through at three large volumes, of which The Resurrection of the Son of God is the most recent addition (2003). Wright’s intent in this series is to take on and refute any and all serious challenges to the historical and saving nature of the details, events and message proclaimed in the New Testament. Ambitious? Yes. [Perfect? Probably not. Consider Proverbs 10: 19 "When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent." Some aspects of Wright’s doctrine of justification have been judged to be erroneous; however, no charges have been brought against any of his many studies on Christ’s resurrection] And it should be said that both of these new books are not easy to read. The persevering person who needs to know will be rewarded by seeing the historical nature of the Gospels and the Resurrection fully considered and ably defended.

Bauckham’s book is probably the most detailed consideration of every person named, and unnamed, who could have been an eyewitness to the saving life and actions of Jesus in the Gospels. As well, Bauckham considers the traditional sources from beyond the New Testament who offer us information about the apostles and other Gospel personalities and the authorship of the Gospels (Papias, Polycrates and Irenaeus, circa 90-175 AD). Careful reflection focuses on where, how and why the Gospels refer to, and utilize, the presence of eyewitnesses and the implications of this usage for believing and nonbelieving readers. The ongoing role of these witnesses after the Gospels had been written and were in circulation is also considered. Other major topics which Bauckham regards are the varieties of oral tradition, eyewitness testimony and eyewitness memory (versus "anonymous community traditions"). Throughout, he seeks by evidence and reason to overturn the attacks upon the Gospels and the Gospel made by a Swedish scholar, Samuel Byrskog in 2002. The result is a study of the New Testament’s eyewitnesses that has been waiting two millennia to be written.

In similar fashion, Wright’s 800-page tome on the resurrection of Jesus leaves no stone (lying or thrown) unturned. His starting point is resurrection, history and Christian theology. Then he surveys life beyond death in ancient paganism and finds the Old Testament’s hope for life beyond death to be unique. Most of the rest of the book is a most painstaking consideration of every New Testament passage that mentions life after death and the resurrection of Jesus. Also included in the investigation is the teaching of the earliest extra-biblical Christian writings. Hope emerges in the person of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and the world’s Lord. 

2008/12 - Never Silent and The Prodigal God

In the intervening months since the last Baker Library Book Brief much has happened. Given the construction which occurred in August, your library itself has been moved from its former location. It is now directly across the hall from our new church office space. Additional shelving was provided as we relocated the library. Also, we have finally accomplished the major goal of providing a commentary on each book of the Bible. As well, we have received a sizable gift of books from a former parishioner. Many of these volumes are quite valuable and will be added to our collection. Our librarians, Dennis and Carol McKnight and Susan Tolbert - and numerous others - are to be thanked.

Among the many books that have been added to our library recently, two demand special attention. Yes, you might want to sign them out of the library and read them. However, you might want to take notice that they would make excellent Christmas gifts for any adult reader on your list. I am thinking of Never Silent: How Third World Missionaries Are Now Bringing the Gospel to the US by our bishop, Thad Barnum and The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith by Timothy Keller.

Bishop Thad has written several previous books. This appears to be the best yet. Numerous copies of Never Silent have already been purchased by parishioners since early September; more are now available.

Tim Keller is the senior pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. His The Reason for God appeared this past February. Now, likewise, The Prodigal God is found on national bestsellers lists. This small, inexpensive hardback clearly sets forth and applies the Gospel of Christ. You may purchase copies of this volume as well at St. John the Evangelist.

Bishop Barnum has placed us all (and many more) in his debt by writing Never Silent. His book carefully details the numerous monumental developments, events and movements within Anglican Christianity during the last 20 years. Many of us are aware of having lived through this tumultuous epoch, but the precise details have begun to become hazy in our recollection. Thankfully, Bishop Thad, an early American acquaintance of an African priest who became a bishop and who continues to play a crucial role in international Anglicanism (John Rucyahana), takes his readers through the whole era. Given the announcement of an orthodox North American province which is meant to replace the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada on December 3, 2008, our author provides the background and a great deal of the needed documentation so that we might know how it all came to this in our own times. It is all here: Kuala Lumpur, First Promise, the Koinonia Statement, St. Andrew’s (Little Rock, AR), Lambeth ’98, Episcopal General Conventions, Kampala, Anglican Mission in America, Singapore, Gene Robinson and much more. Surprisingly, even St. John’s Episcopal Church/St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church is to be found in these pages. Throughout, Bishop Thad serves his readers by calling them as he sees them. This comes as no surprise. Never Silent is eminently readable. The story is, by turns, sorrowful and inspiring. Our Triune God persistently cares for the faithful, the nations, the world and our neighbors who are without Jesus. Although there is a focus upon developments within Anglican Christianity, Never Silent has been acknowledged to be a wake-up call for Christians in the other decaying Northern and Western churches.

The Prodigal God is an extended meditation on the familiar parable of Christ that almost everyone calls “the parable of the prodigal son”. (It might be worthwhile to check the section titles provided in your Bible/or Bibles at Luke 15:11-32). But it is the story of two difficult sons and their father. I have often found myself having to identify with the older brother, even though it seemed that there was little righteousness in that. However, most sermons focus on the younger brother. Keller does not do that. The result of our author’s balance is that everyone is given the opportunity to become uncomfortable with their dissimilarity to Jesus Christ, “the only Son of the Father” and their need for the extravagant love of their Heavenly Father. Apart from any repetition, there is the clear suggestion throughout this slender volume that the Church, all families and the individuals who compose these communities are called to repent of rebellious elder-brotherism. Keller notes that both the younger and the older brother are addicted to this instinct, which drives so much of our resentment, envy and inability to forgive. I highly recommend this book. If you fail to read it, you are disappointing me, other more responsible people and, perhaps, yourself! Regardless, remember that God is willing to forgive and embrace sinners like you and me because of Jesus, his life, his sacrifice and his resurrection from death.

2009/02 - Idolatry, Holy Communion, and Infant Baptism

 Baker Library Book Brief

Greetings in Jesus Christ, risen from the dead!

The last month has proven to be a time of significant developments for our parish library.  Just prior to Christmas, word came to the staff that the interim rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church, (the Rev.) Dr. Barbara Abbott, intended to return our former library to St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church.  By a few days after Epiphany, this transaction was complete.  For this we give thanks to Dr. Abbott and the people of St. John’s Episcopal Church.  As well, we give praise and thanks to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!  Bill Kenney and I were able to take “the cream of the crop” of our old (now new) library.  As well, Mark and I were able to move the card catalog and all of its card files to our present site.  Pray for Carol and Dennis McKnight (and their assistants) as they have embraced the formidable task of ordering our expanding resources.  Perhaps you can help them.  Why don’t you ask? 

In the meantime, let me briefly draw your attention to three new volumes.  Last year’s preaching series on Deuteronomy may have drawn your attention to many themes which you might want to consider at a greater depth.  The matter of idolatry may be pursued by a perusal of Gregory K. Beale’s We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry.  Dr. Beale is a professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School in suburban Chicago.  His numerous weighty publications in recent years have developed themes that run throughout the Bible.  This new work demands careful and thoughtful reading, but is very thorough.  Idolatry and its disastrous effects are considered throughout the Old Testament.  Then follows a study of every New Testament passage relating to idolatry in the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles and the Revelation.  Every reader will find that they have much for which to repent.  Let us remember that we are called to worship God alone!

Also look for The Lord’s Supper, Five Views: Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal.  As the title suggests, this volume will raise plenty of questions, including “what happened to the Anglican teaching on Holy Communion?”  One way or the other, this work (edited by Gordon T. Smith, formerly of Regent College, Vancouver) offers a great deal of helpful insight into eucharistic – and sacramental – theology and practice.  Essays are provided by representative authors of each of the positions considered within the book.  Each essay is followed by a brief evaluation by the other four authors.  Within the framework of this slender volume, Anglican doctrine is considered to be most similar to the Lutheran position.  While that supposition could be debated, there is much to learn here.  No doubt, most readers will find themselves disabused of some misconceptions regarding the positions of other ecclesiastical traditions, while being able to learn some things about our beliefs and worship.

One final recent addition also supports sacramental reflection.  I was recently able to find a copy of The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism by Pierre Marcel.  It is worth noting that this book from 1952 found its way into English translation by Philip E. Hughes, long-time Associate rector of this congregation.  Here is a full study of the biblical doctrine of the covenant and an equally complete consideration of the family, circumcision and baptism in that context.  If you have questions about infant baptism, this book will be of help to you.

2009/09 - Sacred Marriage

Catechism

Catechesis has been something that has always been part of God’s covenant with his people. Catechesis is implied in the comment that the Apostle Paul makes about Timothy’s faith: I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. (2 Timothy 1.5) The conversation between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch is catechesis. Paul’s instructions to fathers requires it: Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6.4)

The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are catechetical tools. The work of the reformation was very largely a work of catechizing the church, as is evidenced by Luther’s Catechism in Germany, the required use of the Elizabethan Homilies in England, Calvin’s Genevan Catechism in Switzerland, and many other such works, all of which provided revitalized tools for teaching and worship.

It’s in this spirit that we offer this little work. This booklet will be used as the basis for training throughout the various grade levels in our Christian Education program. We also commend it to you as part of your home devotional life.

From grandparents of the ripest faith, to harried parents finding bits of time here and there to disciple their children, to little children lisping their faith as best they can, a common faith can be nurtured in a common expression. The Book of Common Prayer is our "language" of worship. This little work can become our "language" of education.

May God use this tool as a blessing in the life of your family, reaping a return on investment that is beyond your imagining!

This was first presented to the families of St. John’s, with love, by the members of the Christian Education Committee on "Youth Sunday" (The Fifth Sunday After Easter), May 17, 2009.

Devotional Guides

We are very pleased to be able to offer several helps for personal devotions and family religion. There are two primary tools:

• Abbreviated Morning and Evening Prayer for Busy Families in PDF format. Note that this has been updated with some small corrections as of 2/6/2010.
• Bible Reading Plan with Propers - For the weeks of June 6th through September 26th in PDF format.

In order to download the above tools, right-click on the link and select 'Download' or 'Save' in the context menu. These tools will also be printed out and available at church for those who wish to pick them up.

Other Options

Below, you'll find a variety of other suggestions for Bible reading plans. A couple of comments about these sites.

1. First, we won't recommend any plan that does not somehow include all of Scripture. However, some of the sites to which this page refers may list plans that are not "66 books complete".
2. We also recommend that you don’t try to catch up if you get too far behind in your Bible reading plan. Experience shows that this can just create frustration. But whatever you do - READ THE BIBLE!

Miscellaneous sites:

• Bible Reading.com
• Bible Reading Plans
• Some advice from Zondervan Publishing
• A review of 5 bible reading plans

Online Site:

This site offers a variety of devotional options, including an online one year Bible reading program that you can read directly from your web browser.

One Year Plans:

• This site also offers a variety of devotional options, including this one year plan.
• This is an intriguing one year plan, designed to prevent boredom and keep one's familiarity with the whole of the Bible at one time. It's designed around sections of Scripture spread across the week.
• Bible Gateway.com
• A review of the Victory Bible Reading Plan. This is not a free plan, you must buy a book.
• Perhaps the most famous of all one year plans, by Robert Murray M’Cheyne - also available is a stand-alone HTML file that you can download to your hard drive.

Two Year Plan:

This plan was downloaded from Perimeter Church, in Duluth, GA.

Three Year Plan:

This is the plan that is used in the St. John's devotional guides. It is also available as a PDF file for downloading to your hard drive.

The Lectionary:

We are not using the lectionary from the 1928 BCP for family devotions and the astute reader will probably ask: Why not the lectionary?

• The lectionary: whether the older lectionary system found in the 1928 book (a one year system), or the newer, so-called Revised Lectionary (a 3 year system) is designed to give an overview of the themes in the church calendar in the context of public worship. It is not designed to be a complete review of those themes.
• The lectionary - even the Revised Lectionary (the 3 year system) - covers only about 23% of the Bible's texts. That means that conversely, 77% of the Bible remains unread, if the lectionary is the sole source of one's reading regimen.
• For Morning and Evening prayer in the context of public worship, the lectionary satisfies as a general guide to Biblical themes. It does not suffice as a means of becoming familiar with all of Scripture in the course of one's devotional life: family or private.
• Having said these things, if one wishes to follow lectionary readings, one may use the tables in the front of the Book of Common Prayer, or visit such sites as these: A collection of lectionary resources for the Episcopal Church, or this from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

2008/12/05: The Calculus of Healing

I was recently asked an interesting question.  "Why doesn't God heal amputees?"  It turns out that this question has some "chatter" going on the Internet, including one web site that has dedicated quite a few words to the topic, in order to prove that God doesn't exist (see whywontgodhealamputees.com).  And one has to admit that there is a certain kind of gut level impact in this question.  Without even thinking about it too long, the question reverberates in our minds: "Yeah, why DOESN'T God heal amputees?  If he can supposedly heal cancer patients, then why not amputees?"

I'll admit that this question gave me pause for a few hours, until I began to ask myself: "what is the underlying POINT of this question?  And what is the underlying logic in assuming that if God doesn't heal amputees, he must not exist?"  So – let's look at this logically.

It seems that the embedded or implied idea behind the question is this: If God has fails to do a certain observable thing that He's supposed to be able to do, then He must not exist.  Is this statement logically necessary?  That is, is the logic implied in the statement correct?

I'm no expert in logic - though I did teach informal logic on a high school level.  So in thinking this through, I did what any self-respecting scholar would do, who needs to brush up on some academic topic.  I went to Wikipedia!  If one uses a syllogistic approach (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism), it's kind of like math: A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.  Here's an example.

• Major premise: All deeds are possible for God.
• Minor premise: All cases of healing amputees are a deed.
• Conclusion: All cases of healing amputees are possible for God.

So far, so good, right?  At least at one website (the one mentioned above: whywontgodhealamputees.com) tries to use a similar kind of logic - or at least it SEEMS that way.  But if you look at this site, what are they really saying?  If you look at this web page (whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm), you'll see this statement: "It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them."

So their logic is something like this:

• Major premise: All prayers are answered affirmatively by God.
• Minor premise: Some amputees pray for healing.
• Conclusion: Some amputees' prayers are answered affirmatively by God.

And because there are NO cases of amputees being healed (they assert), therefore there must be no God.  The problems with this whole approach (logically) are manifold.

• Not all prayers are answered affirmatively by God.
• Not all diseases are healed by God.  I've never heard of a miraculous healing of leishmaniasis, for instance.  Nor for lung or liver flukes.  Nor malignant mesothelioma - for which the median survival period is only about 6-12 months! On the other hand, because I can find no evidence for such healings, does not necessitate the conclusion that such healings have not occurred, right?  Beside, we know of at least one case in Biblical history in which the healing of an amputation did take place - see Matthew 26.51 and following.
• An assumption made by the above mentioned web site is that everything that God CAN do, He WILL do.  But that assumption has a significant flaw.  If God exists, He CAN presumably cause the earth to cease to exist.  Since the earth still exists, there must be no God, one might thereby reason.  That's not great logic - not to mention a little dangerous for the future of humanity, if God DOES exist!
• And the kind of logic the above-mentioned web site uses is similar to this kind of syllogism.  The Inland Taipan is supposedly one of the most deadly poisonous snakes in the world (it's true! look it up!).  However, there are no known cases of a human fatality from this snake.  Therefore, the snake isn't really poisonous.  In point of fact, the explanation given by Wikipedia is "Although highly venomous, it is a relatively timid snake, provided that it is left alone. Even so, if it is suspected that a bite from this snake has occurred, medical attention should be sought immediately. Although known as the most venomous land snake in the world, there have been no documented human fatalities. All known bites have been treated using antivenin."
• One's ignorance of God's reasoning for not healing amputees (or malignant mesothelioma sufferers) doesn't mean that there is no reason, nor no God.  It simply means we don't know.  I refer the reader to Job 40.3-9.

One more analogy; we know that God almost never permanently heals death (remember, Lazarus died again, at least of old age).  The only exceptions that are documented in Scripture are Enoch and Elijah.  That's two out of many billions of people.  Does that mean there is no God, or that there is only an infinitesimally small chance for the existence of God?

Bottom line: the argument put forward by such web sites as whywontgodhealamputees.com are grounded on bad logic and worse exegesis (interpretation of Scripture).  This latter problem has so many examples on that web site that I don't even want to start talking about that!

It argues from emotions and DEMANDS that the web site's author get to tell us what God has to be like.  I suggest that if we get to create God, then WE are the creators, and not He.  That's definitely backwards!

2009/01/08: Paul's Journeys

Primarily, this page has been created to provide a point of access for the Thursday Morning Bible Study group to be able to download the most excellent review of Paul’s three missionary journeys put together by our own Butch Bodenheimer!

Butch, entirely through his own research and development, created the framework for this presentation. On Jan 8th he presented it to the Thursday Morning Men’s Bible Study.  Butch thereby demonstrated the fact that we have very able men and women in our congregation - and indeed, all over Christ’s church.

One of the things that most delights my pastor’s heart is this: to see someone put the work into learning God’s word in such a way that they can pass those lessons on to others.

While each one reading this little note has different skills, gifts, interests, and passions; not a single one of you is without a skill, gift, passion or interest. Nor is a single one of you without an opportunity somewhere and at some time to express those gifts for Jesus’ sake.

Let me encourage you: when you see the opening to serve, take it! Well done, Butch!

• PPT (Microsoft Powerpoint file)
• PDF (Adobe PDF file)
• HTML (standard web page format with pictures, ZIPped)

2009/04/01: I See Your True Colors!

In 1986, Cyndi Lauper released the song “True Colors.” For some readers, 1986 is probably like a million years ago, musicologically speaking. Not being much of a Cyndi Lauper fan, the tune is actually stuck in my head because of Kodak’s “Show Your True Colors” campaign. In any event - Cyndi got this one right!

The pro-choice camp has long talked about abortion as an unfortunate necessity, the least of a plethora of horrible evils, a kind of worst case alternative just short of murder or suicide through twisted coat hangers, or shadowy meetings with back-room surgical hacks. As the saying used to go: let’s keep abortions “safe, legal, and rare.”

But like water colors on thin paper, the true colors do eventually leak through. Over a decade ago, in 1996, an Episcopal priestess by the name of Katherine Ragsdale wrote in a speech given before the Mars Hill Forum:

“So, the first question – addressed to us all – is: what are we doing to reduce the need for abortions? None of us, regardless of our position on choice, approves of a world where pregnant women are faced with despair and see no viable options but to abort. But what are we doing, as God’s agents in the world, to change that situation?”

She continues later on in that same speech: “… we cannot eliminate the need for abortion. But we could dramatically reduce it.” She sounds earnest and compassionate, don’t you think?

Well, that was then. This is now.

In July of 2007, the same Rev. Ms. Ragsdale, in an article entitled “Our Work Is Not Done” wrote about the same terrible risks that have always awaited poor, undereducated, helpless women who are unable to obtain safe and legal abortions; oppression, death, and the like. She lists the three traditionally “good” reasons to get an abortion (rape, fetal anomalies, poverty), and in such cases, she says, abortion is no tragedy, but a blessing.

But she goes one step further and writes:

“And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight – only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.”

Even that’s not enough. Not only must abortion be kept safe, legal, and – not rare? – she goes on the attack with medical health providers who have a different mind on this topic:

“If you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them.” (emphasis hers)

A respected Christian apologist once said in my hearing that a plea for tolerance is often a prelude to tyranny. Within a period of about 10 years, Ragsdale’s comments move from “safe, legal, rare” to “obey or leave.” In The Merchant Of Venice, Shakespeare puts these words in the mouth of Launcelot: “murder cannot be hid long … but at the length truth will out.” (Act II, Scene 2) As they like to say these days: “duuh, yuh think?”

PS₁: The link to Ragsdale’s essay “Our Work Is Not Done” had been to her blog page, but that page was taken down within 24 hours after I wrote this essay on 4/1/2009. The new link above is to NARAL-Texas’s web site. For fear that she may expunge other examples of her essay, I’m also attaching a PDF version of it here.

PS₂: See a reference Dr. Ragsdale’s appointment as the new president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge MA at VirtueOnline here and here. Since she is “openly gay,” - by which I suppose the writer means that she is a homosexual - her appointment is even more of a coup for EDS, enabling them to show exactly how progressive they are.

2009/04/23: A Sabbath For The Soul

“Cease striving and know that I am God” (Psa 46.10).

In a short essay I read recently, Rick Warren makes the point that too many of us live “on the margin.” He doesn’t mean on the margin of our society, or our wealth, or our comfort zones. He means on the margin of our ability to cope with life.

Dr. Richard Swenson says, “The conditions of modern day living devour margin. If you’re homeless we direct you to a shelter. If you’re penniless we offer you food stamps. If you’re breathless we connect you to oxygen. But if you’re marginless we give you one more thing to do. Marginless is being thirty minutes late to the doctor’s office because you were twenty minutes late getting out of the hairdresser because you were ten minutes late dropping the children off at school because the car ran out of gas two blocks from a gas station and you forgot your purse. That’s marginless.”

Here are some factoids that probably impact almost all of us: 

• People now sleep 2 1/2 fewer hours each night compared to people from one hundred years ago.
• The average work week is longer now than it was in the 1960s.
• The average office worker has 36 hours of work piled up on his or her desk. It takes three hours a week just to sort through it and find what we need.
• We spend eight months of our lives opening junk mail, two years of our lives playing phone tag with people who are too busy to answer, and five years waiting for people who are trying to do too much and are late for meetings.

In my conversations with business people who are now in the 60s and 70s, they admit - thus far without exception! - that the pace of life and work is much higher than 20 or 30 years ago. Our “conveniences” have just made it more convenient to be occupied all the time! Work, education, entertainment - it doesn’t matter - we don’t know how to be still.

I have a theory about this. I recently ran across a quote from Donald Bloesch: “The Fathers of the Church were not afraid to go out into the desert because they had a richness in their hearts. But we, with richness all around us, are afraid, because the desert is in our hearts.” In other words, he’s suggesting that we’re afraid to be alone, because we’re perhaps afraid of what we’ll find - or won’t find - there.

Contemplation, quiet, time alone; even Jesus needed to occupy himself in that way. Are we so skilled at life that we don’t need what our Savior needed?

2009/07/02: A Report On The ACNA Inaugural Council

I had the responsibility and privilege of attending the inaugural Convocation or Council of the Anglican Church in North America. There are a great number of reports, opinions, and analyses to be found on the Internet, but I’ve weighed in with a few thoughts of my own. The full report can be found here.

You’ll also find appended to that document a copy of AMiAs’ “protocol” regarding its relationship to ACNA, as well as comments from Bishop Charles Murphy.

2009/09/28: Worship ... Sort'a

Perhaps you haven’t heard the phrase “worship wars,” but you almost certainly know that they’re going on.

• Guitars or organs?
• Hymns or praise songs?
• Short or long services?
• Children’s sermons or no?
• 10 minute sermons or 50?
• Flip flops or suits?
• Hawaiian shorts or vestments?
• Culturally relevant or historically accurate?

You’ve heard these discussions and probably even started a few of them yourself. To be honest, I hold most of these discussions to be a prime example of missing the forest for the trees. After all, there were plenty of guitars at Woodstock and I wouldn’t call that a worship service! Wanamaker was famous for its organ in downtown Philadelphia and that wasn’t a worship service either.

The real issue is this: what is the purpose? An old friend of mine, the Rev. Dr. Monte Wilson, recently wrote a great article: “Narcissism Goes To Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship”. He rightly observes:

“When I contemplate gathering to worship the Triune God in the presence of angels, archangels and the Cloud of Witnesses – which is exactly what we do when we “gather as the church” – I am struck with the sinful and irreverent nonsense of much of what goes on in our worship services. I am not only speaking of people falling down laughing or of rock bands screaming; I am also thinking of the bored familiarity with which many approach worship. Both services fail to glorify God and invite his presence. Consequently, both services fail to meet the real needs of God’s people.”

The war, dear brothers and sisters, is not about the externals (some of which I enumerated above). The war is for our souls’ true affections for God, rather than those idolatrous things that we put in His place. Dr. Wilson, quoting from Jonathan Edwards says:

“That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising us but a little above indifference. God, in his word, greatly insists upon it, that we be in good earnest, fervent in spirit, and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion.”  “As there is no true religion where there is nothing else but affection (ed. note: feelings/experiences), so there is no true religion where there is no religious affections.1

I highly recommend Dr. Wilson’s article here.

1. 1. On Religious Affections, Part I, Sections 2 and 3. The full text may be found here.

2009/10/01: Reformation, Not Realignment

REALIGNMENT
The Archbishop of Canterbury talks about it. The Archbishops outside of North America are doing it. The Archbishop of ECUSA hates it. Many of the continuing churches in North America are depending on it. “Global realignment” is the buzz phrase of today’s Anglicanism.

As ECUSA continues its headlong moral and organizational sprint into chaos, the whimper started by the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873 has turned into a bellow of moral outrage and a plea to set right the wrongs. Many seem to believe the best way to do this is by detaching conservative parishes from ECUSA and reattaching them to some other facet of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

This approach is driven by the laudable desire is to keep as much of the worldwide communion as intact as possible. Reasons vary; from apostolic succession for the Anglo-Catholics, to political elegance for many conservatives, to the theological principles embedded in John 17, to deeply felt brotherhood and fellowship for those who rightly stand in awe of “global south” moral courage.

Now we have a hodge-podge of international investment in North America: Rwanda, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, South East Asia, the West Indies, the Province of West Africa, the Southern Cone, Bolivia. Each of these Primates with - and sometimes without - their constituent Houses of Bishops have weighed in, doing - they say - what the Holy Spirit has led them to do.

The sad irony is that these primates are opposing that which Jefferts-Schori says the Holy Spirit has told HER to do. Well, we can be sure that spirits are involved in some way - but one should be cautious to accuse the Third Person of the Holy Trinity for the mess in which Anglicans now find themselves.

Most unfortunately, the original intent of unity is turning into disunity. Nigeria leads CANA and Truro goes there. Rwanda leads AMiA (”in the Americas”) and Grace Church and Pascoe have gone that way. AMiA(s) is against women’s ordination, sort of, but not really, because Rwanda is for it. CANA is for women’s ordination, but not Nigeria, at least until we “discern the mind of Christ,” or something like that. And that just one kind of disunity in only two organizations!
 
WHERE DOES IT HURT?
The answer offered for Anglicanism’s ills is structural realignment. But have we heard the question rightly? And are we fixing the problem? Or are we perhaps putting a cast on an unbroken limb? Is structural alignment the problem? Was having the wrong partner the source of North American Anglicanism’s ills?

Political relationships are the content or vessel into which the form and substance of ideas and goals are poured. This essay suggests that without a re-formation of the substance, the realignment of the parts is irrelevant. In fact, it’s worse than irrelevant. The realignment of the parts without clear substance and purpose actually exacerbates Anglicanism’s ills.

It has been observed that one of Anglicanism’s greatest weaknesses today is its refusal - or inability - to define itself. Consider the so-called four instruments of unity.

The Anglican Consultative Council (June 2005) resolved as follows: “The … Council notes with approval the suggestion of the Windsor Report that the Archbishop of Canterbury be regarded as the focus for unity and that the Primates’ Meeting, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council be regarded … as the ‘Instruments of Communion’” (http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc13/resolutions.cfm#s2). While this statement may warm one’s heart, that’s about the only value to be found in it. There is very little unity around any of these four instruments.

The Rev. Canon Mark Harris rightly takes note of this disunity in an essay (www.thewitness.org/agw/harris012804.html) in which he writes: “Whatever else the Anglican Communion is about, it is not, it seems, about unity based on the symbol of the Archbishop of Canterbury.” One cannot commend Canon Harris’ theology, but his clarity is wonderful.

Even a meeting of the Primates is not generating much unity these days; witness the meetings in Dar Es Salaam. There is significant rhetoric, substance is quite lacking however.

The point is that realignment, restructuring, multiple concentric circles, or whatever configuration is most popular at the moment is scratching what does not itch, binding what is not broken, and leaving the rotten limb to turn gangrenous.

ECUSA is a sickly creature. Trying to attach the dead or sick parts of it to another body will only carry the disease and death with it, which is responsible for the sickness in the first place. And that disease is disengagement from historic creedal Christianity.

TAKE THIS AND CALL ME …
A sister from a non-denominational denomination recently told me that she is excited about Anglicanism’s theological content. “You’re connected,” she said, “with clear creeds and statements of doctrine, both in your Articles and in your worship.” Out of the mouth of a low-church, no-church sister comes wisdom for the ages.

It is hoped that there is relative unity on the following assertion: being Anglican is to be somehow to be related to the church of the English reformation. So, let us ask: for what did Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer die? Realignment? “Mission”? “Living into” this, or being an entrepreneurial that?

The truth is that, by modern standards, our Anglican forefathers actually died for rather idealistic and apparently irrational reasons; things like the doctrines of justification and the sacraments. What would they think of today’s Anglicanism ignoring the very Articles of Religion they drafted? Indeed, there are so-called Anglicans today that embrace the precise doctrinal errors for which Cranmer died, without any shame or fear of correction!

With great ignorance or disingenuousness, many claim that what Cranmer et al. worked for was not creedal or doctrinal, but political in nature. They claim that Cranmer was just compromising. Perhaps – and perhaps not. Don’t we find it a strange thing that a compromising politician uncompromisingly burnt the hand that signed his earlier recantations while tied to a stake, saying: “This hand hath offended”?

We need to remember that Cranmer and his kin died for ideas, theology, truth! They did not give their lives for “global realignment.” He had the opportunity to work toward exactly that. Cranmer was very sympathetic to the causes of Calvin in Switzerland and Luther in Germany. It is well known that Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr were protégés and friends of the Archbishop and had significant roles to play in work of the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion.

Cranmer could have configured himself and the reformation of the English church around these various relationships and hoped that it would later bear fruit. Instead, he pressed forward with prayer book revision, a confessional statement modeled on continental reforms, and the Elizabethan Homilies, no matter what alignments seemed propitious for the moment. He did not set aside the unpopular changes to the BCP to keep portions of his country happy, waiting to “discern the mind of Christ” - or the mind of the populace.

For Cranmer and others, the substance of theology was far more important than organizational card shuffling. They were not immune to their own intrigues and attempts at political elegance, but the products of their labors were a national church framed around the Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Elizabethan Homilies.

And yet in our day, there is a shyness about holding to these instruments. The reason for such shyness (one suspects) is that these instruments are not the instruments of unity for which a misdirected church would seek. Instead of tickling the theological senses, such instruments could divide and offend. And God forbid that one should offend! We might divide the church, lose our properties … oh, wait, that’s right, we already have done - but WITHOUT a concomitant unity of purpose and mind.

In the aforementioned essay by Canon Harris, he complains about the statement from the Anglican Communion Network called “Confession and Calling …” He writes: “What is sought is confessional allegiance based on the statement … which supposedly promotes ‘unity of belief and practice that serves to expose the individualism and congregationalism that is now regnant within the Church at large and denies the Name of Jesus.’ All free thinkers and all members of the ecumenical community in which congregationalism is rampant take note - these people want you and me out because they think we deny the Name of Jesus.”

For those not familiar with the document to which Harris refers, “Confession and Calling …” is a statement by the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (aka The Anglican Communion Network) that serves as a theological charter statement, noting (among other things) that “Scripture’s meaning is rightly discerned … through the theological ordering of our common historic formularies, including the sixteenth and seventeenth century authorized Books of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles.”  (see http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/about#theo-stmt)

It appears that Canon Harris fears theological re-formation a great deal. And he’s not alone. Oh the howling from Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh regarding the document. The Diocese of Central Florida is afraid that it’s divisive.

Why the forceful opposition to another seemingly harmless document? The opposition is based on the upset that a re-formation of theology could cause. As Harris indignantly points out, there will then be a basis on which some are in and some are out! As he further warns, one simply cannot propose this kind of solution, since it would be entirely out of keeping with the spirit of the age: “It is appalling that at the close of the modern era that religion has once again become the rallying point for the warrior’s courage.” Ah, the frightening prospect of courage on the horizon, it simply chills the soul, does it not?

AND IN CONCLUSION
Enough of realignment! It’s time for reformation! Instead of the imprecise - if not intentionally misleading - language of “mutual affection” and the guidance of whatever kind of “spirits” there are, let us brave the risk of stating our positions clearly. Let us purify this portion of Christ’s bride by washing it in the unmuddied waters of “truth” and “lie,” “right” and “wrong.” “Jesus is just OK with me” religion barely passes as sound Christianity, never mind as a kind of vigorous reformation-working faith for our time.

Loyalty to the former instruments of unity - the Anglican formularies - is just the medicine that will save this patient. They are a ‘regula fidei’ which provides a common language and framework for our work as Anglican Christians. Will there still be questions and problems to solve? Surely, but at least we may approach them with a common vocabulary.

Let us play the man, dear church, and perhaps - just maybe - the now guttering candle lit so long ago will again shed a comforting light in this world. Let us return to the warrior spirit that sent our fathers to fire and jail, drowning and exile - before such extremes for defending the faith become necessary for our progeny in this part of the world.

Lord have mercy on your Bride, the Church.

PS: I encourage readers to consider such organizations as The Society for the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine (SPREAD a http://www.anglicanspread.org) and the Prayer Book Society of the USA (http://pbsusa.org) as being committed to “standards based” and “confessional” Anglicanism.

2009/10/07: Bishop Rodgers On "Why I Am A Reformation Christian"

Why I Am A Reformation Christian And Anglican In The Classic Sense Of The 39 Articles
by Rt. Rev. John Rodgers

With the transfer of some of my friends to the Roman Catholic Church and others to the Eastern Orthodox tradition and still others to the CEC and PCA and perhaps to come, some to the Methodist and Lutheran Churches, where they are free standing, I thought it good to indicate some reasons why I do not think it wise to make moves that place oneself outside the Christian Faith as it is expressed in the classic Anglican Formularies, or to put it another way, to be at odds with the Scripture rightly interpreted and applied. (How’s that for a claim. Why not!) None of this is meant to deny the positive things that could be said.

With Regard to Rome:

There is the matter of devotion to our Lord’s Mother. I believe that the new Pope is a bit less on the Marian side than was John Paul II. Popular piety in Rome is a far cry from the official teaching of Rome regarding the one whom we all rightly call “Blessed”.

But even of the more restrained official teaching I have the gravest of doubts. Several of the Marian dogmas seem to me to be in direct contradiction to Scripture. In addition I have the following weighty concerns:

1.     the relation of the Papal authority to declare dogma and the proper authority of Scripture.

2.     the nature of the relation between Justification by grace through faith and the place of works of sanctification,

3.     the efficacy of the sacraments and their right use in faith. I am not confident that any of these have ever been stated in Rome in a satisfactory biblical sense.

Much of the above seems to me to apply to the Eastern Orthodox tradition in its several branches. One would need to replace the authority of the Pope with the ecclesiastical authority of Ecumenical Councils.

I do believe in the Scriptural promise of the indefectibility of the Church but that does not write a blank check to any particular Council or particular denomination of the divided visible institutions of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. Both visible Churches and Councils must be checked by their agreement with Scripture. And in regard to that, one cannot simply hand off the responsibility to make that judgment even where there is 2000 years of tradition.

Though I would want to add that one must be very thoughtful about the weight of that tradition. One honors one’s Father and Mother but does not grant them infallibility. The inevitable exercise of individual judgment cannot be avoided, it is part of the human constitution and in the last day we will be asked about how we have exercised

I am not certain as to where the teaching of the CEC has gone so I must not comment about them, except to say that given their rush to the top of the liturgical candle stick I find in myself a need to be assured that they have remained within the reformed catholicism of the Reformation tradition, a la the 39 Articles.

Lutheranism:

Lutherans seem to me to be allergic to the sanctifying work of the Spirit and somewhat unreformed in some of their sacramental teaching. This leads them to some oddities in their Christology. I have the greatest respect for the Missouri Synod but would find it impossible to sign on to the entire Book of Concord. That requirement has rendered it impossible for them to break bread with any other Communion including any other Lutheran bodies.

Methodism:

Methodists generally seem to me come short on the depth of sin and the sovereignty and priority of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and hence they ignore or distort the mystery of election.

I’ll admit Election must be left a mystery and that in Scripture Election is addressed to the faithful as a call to assurance and holiness. We are to preach the Gospel to all; we have no mandate to be election inspectors.

Presbyterianism:

From the outside, the PCA seems in good shape regarding doctrine on the whole but is lacking liturgically and is given in places to inordinate discipline on very secondary matters about which differing exegesis can reasonably be held.

There seems to be a tendency to rationalism in the Reformed tradition that needs careful watching lest it triumph over the grace of the Gospel and patience of Christ with us all. It is instructive that the Articles introduce the Scriptures first as “Sufficient for Salvation “. We need to keep the emphasis there and for sinners such as I that means a heavy dose of justification is foundational and central.

Continuing Anglicanism:

In the continuing Anglican Tradition I worry about an inordinate concern for “apostolic orders” which cannot be shown to be apostolic by biblical exegesis. I do not mean to deny that the historic Episcopate and the Presbyters and Deacons ordained in that line are not good for the Church or raised up by the work of the Holy Spirit from early days.

Nor do I deny that this ancient order should be commended to all when it is exercised in faith and in accord with Apostolic Teaching found in Scripture ( the emphasis of the Pastoral Epistles), I just don’t think that when such ministers in “apostolic order” depart from the Apostolic Faith they do much good and in fact they do a great deal of harm.

I think it odd to limit the efficacy of the sacraments to those in which these “apostolic” ministers preside as if all Christian Churches did not have the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist even when their ordained ministers are not in historic succession.

I note the Lambeth Conferences never limit “Church” to those with historic orders. The Articles do not either. In fact they seem to intentionally avoid giving that impression. In short such a limitation is not a classical Anglican thing to do. I do not believe it is a biblical thing to do.

Conclusion:

Well, now that I have irritated almost all of my friends, and comforted the few cohorts I have left, I just wanted to emphasize that I am a happy Anglican in the classic style and am counting on a realignment of the Anglican Communion along the classic lines. I invite all and sundry to help that happen and to be part of it.

I assume first, that all three streams can and will be included and second, that there will be room for Anglicans that do not agree with all of my opinions stated above. I do trust however that all will need to adhere to the 39 Articles and the theology expressed in the 1662 BCP and Ordinal, being convinced that they are Scriptural. If we do not have that standard, given the amazing results of exegesis and odd hermeneutical practices that we have today, we would soon be back in the mess that ECUSA is in today.

2010/01/06: The Epiphany and "The Ship of Fools"

Today is Epiphany, the day in the church calendar on which western Christians have long remembered the revelation of Jesus to the Gentiles. The worship of the magi from the east typifies the promise of God:

A picture of the statue mentioned below. Click on the image to go to the original source.

I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (Revelation 7.9–10)

Epiphany means "appearance" or "manifestation" (Greek, epifaneia). So "epiphany" can refer to far more than just Christ's revelation to the Gentiles. The Eastern Church recognizes this fact with "the emphasis at this feast … on the shining forth and revelation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Second Person of the Trinity at the time of his baptism."1

But are we paying attention to the appearance and revelation of truth? Revelation doesn't always equal knowledge or wisdom. Hearing with the ears isn't necessarily identical with listening, learning, and gaining maturity.

The lesson that "revelation" isn't necessarily listening and learning was brought home to me quite forcefully some years ago, when I had the privilege of visiting Nürnberg (Nuremberg) Germany. Nürnberg is a city that is now, unfortunately, (in)famous for two things:

• - the monstrous Nazi rallies from 1927 to 1938, where some of the most famous pictures of mass gatherings of Nazis, row upon row of soldiers, torches, and flags were taken, and,
• - the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and 1946.

At one time, Nürnberg was more famous as a city of notable Denker und Dichter ("Thinkers and Poets" - not to mention artists, printers, musicians, sculptors, and theologians); among them Albrecht Dürer and Nicolaus Copernicus.2 There is a statue in the town called "The Ship of Fools," named after a book written by Sebastian Brant in 1494, which in turn borrows an allegorical theme from times long forgotten. "The allegory depicts a vessel populated by human inhabitants who are deranged, frivolous, or oblivious, passengers aboard a ship without a pilot, and seemingly ignorant of their own direction."3

The statue has a bit of poetry around it, taken from Brant's work, which I have duplicated below. What is of special interest is that this poetry was written shortly after the time of "the Black Death … estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population, reducing the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in 1400."4 That bit of poetry reads as follows (with my translation):

From an English translation of Section 88 by Alexander Barclay, 1874.

Writing shortly after the end of the "Black Death," only a Fool, says Brant, is one who can see clear indications of truth, but ignore the meaning of them. Hearing isn't necessarily the same as learning, nor seeing as knowledge! Or to use a more modern image, only a fool keeps putting coins in a Coke machine, hoping to get Mountain Dew. Perhaps we can learn from Christ's revelation and the events in our own lives. Maybe it's a good time to take a closer and more careful look at them and the condition of our society with a fresh eye and a keener sense?

When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. (Matthew 16.2–4)

1. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany
2. 2. Nuremberg is a relatively small town, but an excellent example of a walled city. Blessed with a rich collection of historical resources, one of my favorite parts of the city is the Germanisches Nationalmuseum (German National Museum), a very significant collection of culture and art.
3. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_fools
4. 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

2010/01/13: Packer On "Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic?"

A friend of mine brought this to my attention and I've copied it here in its entirety - Mark Rudolph.

Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic?
By the Rev. Dr. James I. Packer

Anglicanism is the most debated form of Christianity. It is judged in a variety of ways not only by outsiders and spectators, but also by Anglicans themselves. Even for a person who has spent a great part of his life in the world of Anglicanism, it is not easy to disentangle the knot of misunderstanding about Anglicanism.

A first point of discussion is whether Anglicanism should be considered part of Protestantism. In many of its expressions, particularly among those who are called Anglo–Catholics, Anglicanism shows striking resemblance to Roman Catholicism. Today we can even find Anglican churches in which the interior differs in no way from that of a Roman Catholic church. Anglican churches in which The Lord’s Supper is again considered the sacrifice of the Mass; in which the priest wears Catholic vestments; and in which nearly all the Roman Catholic devotions such as benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, recitation of the rosary, and veneration of Mary and the saints have been introduced.

However, by far the majority of Anglicans find this all as strange as does a Dutch Protestant. In any case, whatever judgement may be formed of Anglo–Catholicism from the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church, the official conduct of Anglican churches should not be measured by Anglo–Catholic criteria: this would, a priori, render a proper understanding of the activities of these churches impossible. As opposed to Anglo–Catholic Anglicans there are many other Anglicans whose vision of the nature of the Christian religion, the Church, the sacraments, and the gospel is typically Protestant. As a result of their insular formation many Anglicans scarcely know how much of the Reformation heritage they share in their faith, thought, and actions.

It may be true that Anglicans generally do not like to be called Protestant, and that Anglicanism as it presents itself today should not simply be considered part of Protestantism. On the Catholic as well as on the Protestant side there is a fairly recent widespread opinion that Anglicanism is closer to the Roman Catholic Church than to the Reformation. This notion had its origin in the nineteenth century Oxford Movement, which was a Catholicizing revival. It has left permanent traces in the total picture of Anglicanism today, but in the form it has assumed in later Anglo–Catholicism, it has remained a foreign and isolated element in the world of Anglican churches. [webmaster’s note: John Keble’s sermon that started all this, National Apostasy Preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, on July 14, 1833.]

As a result of the lively activity and propaganda displayed by Anglo–Catholicism for over a century, many people have come into contact with Anglicanism by way of Anglo–Catholicism. Consequently, many of these people have the impression that Anglicanism belongs in principle to the Catholic type of Christianity and that it has been influenced by the sixteenth century Reformation and Protestantism only accidentally and superficially.

Such a neo–Anglican vision is untenable. It is contrary to the historical facts, if all the facts, documents and data are taken into consideration. This neo–Anglican vision is based on a one–sided, arbitrary interpretation of the ecclesiastic and religious events which took place during the troubled and confused reign of Henry VIII. It also disregards the distinct Reformation characteristics of Anglican preaching and writing in the sixteenth century, to the present day. Moreover, it is based on serious misconceptions of the deepest essence of the Reformation, and of the real content, purport, and intention of the teaching and theology of the Roman Catholic Church. (see also Topical Index - Roman Catholicism)

On the other hand, in reaction to liberalism and lawlessness on the part of Anglo–Catholics within the Protestant Episcopal Church, many abandoned the denomination, and established independent jurisdictions which were staunchly Anglo–Catholic in theology and practice, but of a conservative nature in other respects. None of these independent Churches, however, are recognized by Canterbury or any other of the national Churches of the Anglican Communion.

Finally freed from the restrictions of Canon Law and church custom, these Anglo–Catholics were able to establish Tractarian parishes along ultra–Montagne ritualist lines, furnishing their own Romish clergy as well, most of who had not been ordained in the P.E.C.U.S.A. or trained in her seminaries. Ostensibly, they claimed to have broken with the mother church over the use of the 1928 BCP and the introduction of the 1979 BCP, which they regarded as heretical.

But instead of retaining the 1928 BCP, these Anglo–Catholic groups wasted no time in introducing a novelty of their own and insinuating it upon an often unwitting laity. The Anglican Missal, and Anglo–Catholic version of the Roman Mass in English, quickly supplanted the Book of Common Prayer in the majority of parishes of the splinter Churches, and in many instances its use was made mandatory.

Paradoxically, those who claimed it necessary to split from the P.E.C.U.S.A. because of the introduction of a new Prayer Book became the promoters of a liturgy completely foreign to orthodox Anglican usage. The Anglican Missal is not really a substitute for the Prayer Book, as it contains only the liturgy for the Mass and rites incidental to the celebration of the Mass, such as making “holy” water and prayers for the dead. Along with the introduction of the Missal, the Anglo–Catholic clergy convinced their lay constituencies that the Missal was really the 1928 Book of Common Prayer with “proper” rubrics added to restore “catholic” orthodoxy to the liturgy destroyed by the Protestant Reformation and to correct “errors and flaws in the 1928 BCP.” Of course, since Anglo–Catholicism insists upon having the Holy Communion (Mass or Holy Eucharist, as they call it) every Lord’s Day, gullible congregations were tricked into accepting this substitute for the Prayer Book without complaint. They were not even aware they had been robbed, given paste for the gem of our Protestant Anglican heritage.

When first introduced by Anglo–Catholic clergy (illegally) to American congregations, the Anglican Missal was publicly condemned by over thirty bishops of the Church and forbidden in their Dioceses. High Church bishops, such as Dr. Manning of New York and Dr. Parsons of California were very outspoken in their rejection of the Missal as a “perversion and misrepresentation” of the Prayer Book. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church soundly rejected the Missal and condemned its use as a threat to Anglicanism in the country.

The origins of the Anglican Missal, in its British and American versions, cannot be dealt with herein. It is sufficient to say that it has never been an approved service book of the Anglican Communion, and itself bears little relation to the Book of Common Prayer. Yet, because of the ignorance of Epicopalian believers, regarding their own precious Book of Common Prayer, even conservative churchmen have been duped into accepting a lie. In their desire to protect their orthodox Christian heritage, they have unwittingly sacrificed a priceless portion of that heritage.

Yes, the 1928 BCP may still be found in the pews of these Anglo–Romanist churches: this is the unkindest cut of all, as it is a bold sham. One poor lady was even told that the Missal was really the Sarum Use of Salisbury Cathedral, which her monsignor regarded as the “purist” liturgy of Christendom!

The notion of many Reformed Protestants that Anglicanism was never really “reform–minded” and thoroughly Protestant is, like the neo–Anglican vision, based on a one sided judgement which sees the situation only from a Puritan viewpoint. But, as is evident from classical sixteenth century Anglican theology, it is impossible to explain the struggle between Anglicanism and Puritanism under Elizabeth I as a secret nostalgia for the Roman Church, or as an attempt to arrive at a compromise without principle.

If the Anglican Reformation ran a different course from that of the Lutheran and the other Reformed churches, this must be attributed not to after effects of Roman Catholic influences, but rather to certain typically English circumstances, to certain traits in the English national Character, and to the practical, humanistic character of English religiousness.

The bishops who laid the foundations of Anglicanism during the time of Elizabeth I were not striving for an unprincipled compromise between Romanism and Protestantism. In their writings there is not a trace of Romish sympathies. When they battled Puritanism, they were concerned about protecting the Church against premature and shortsighted abolition and against disorder and liturgical dissoluteness. As far as the episcopal government of the Church, the liturgy, and the sacraments were concerned, it is out of the question that the Anglican bishops of the time included anything of a Romish origin. Elizabeth I had no other aim than to give the Reformation movement its own austere form and style. But the Anglican Reformation never reached a static position where nothing could be changed or revoked. More than did Lutheran and Reformed Protestantism, Anglicanism succeeded in realizing the universal Christian ideals of the reformers. Yet, it also preserved a certain openness to the Catholic and the Reformed interpretations of the the faith. It has taken seriously the principle “ecclesia catholica semper reformanda” – the church catholic, always reforming. By nature Anglicanism has a wide vision. Moreover, it has a great reverence for what has grown slowly, what has been tried, what has been generally accepted – in short, for tradition (not to be confused with the Catholic concept of tradition).

It cannot be denied that in the course of time the vision of the true nature of the Reformation and of Protestantism has for many Anglicans been clouded. The rise of a pietistic subjectivism and liberal individualism has influenced many Anglicans to view Protestantism as a negative, destructive force which lacks repsect due to age–old Christian tradition and community values. To a great degree, Anglo–Catholicism has succeeded in wiping out the last traces of Anglicanism being related to the Reformation. This has in turn produced a kind of ecclesiastical and theological schizophrenia within worldwide Anglicanism, leaving the Communion deeply divided and to a great degree incapable of dealing with the many divisive issues of twentieth–century Christianity.

Anglo–Catholicism, once embraced as a remedy against rationalism and humanism, has proved inadequate to the job. Historically foreign to the true tradition of English and American churchmanship, it has become exactly what it initially sought to combat: it is liberal, lawless, and radical in the extreme.

Anglicanism must be called back to its Reformation foundations and historic theology: without such a reclamation of its Protestant heritage, it is in danger of disappearing altogether. The ultimate decision for Anglican believers will not lie in choosing a Protestant or Catholic indentity, but in choosing between Papal and biblical Christianity. 

2010/01/25: "Speaking Across The Gender Gap"

There are many jokes about the differences between men and women. Men are said to be from Mars and women from Venus, for example. There's a joke regarding the 3 rules of understanding women: rule 1 is that you'll never understand women; rule 3 refers the reader to rule 1. And the list goes on.

But what if the differences are intentional, rather than design flaws? What if - as computer geeks put it - the differences are features and not bugs? What if, for example, the differences are complementary? What if the goal of relationships between males and females is not equivalency, but inter-relatedness and support? What if the relative appearance of strengths and weaknesses is really performing a reciprocal and mutually helpful role?

In an article I ran across in the "New Scientist" magazine "Speaking Across The Gender Gap",1 Dr. Deborah Tannan, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, speaks of the difference between "report-talk" and "rapport-talk".

"… She suggests that talk between men and women ought to be studied as a form of cross-cultural communication. There is as much chance of men and women understanding each other automatically as there was of the Victorian British understanding the 'darkest tribes of Africa' … She was seeing differences in … children that mirrored the classic differences between the way that men and women speak, differences that women frequently complain about. 'I understand the female style instinctively but I couldn't say as a scientist that one way was better than another.'"

Isn't this the idea behind Genesis 2.18 and following? Man needs a helper that corresponds to his needs - "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." In Scripture, the man is called to be the prophetic voice in the family, the spiritual leader, and the protector and provider for them. However, the need for a helper clearly demonstrates his inherent inability to perform these functions alone. And the women, as one who cooperates and enables the man to function in these roles, is likewise unable to perform these functions alone.

This isn't separate but equal, nor is it united and indistinguishable. It's differently united and equally interdependent. What's fascinating is that a self-professed feminist - through her research into communication between the sexes - is discovering that the natural world clearly demonstrates these very truths!

As the Scriptures clearly imply, the sum of the parts in a marriage really IS less than the value and strength of the whole. 1 + 1 = 1 and then some! And doesn't this same principle apply in the church?

1. 1. See some of here articles, including the one cited here at http://www.mightystudents.com/catalog/?tag=Deborah%20Tannen

2010/02/23: "It's About Life" - A Speech Before Abington Hospital's Board

Ladies and gentlemen, I would venture to say that the topic at hand is as emotional as any that has affected our national conscience. Perhaps only slavery and especially the infamous Dred Scott decision can compare. That Supreme Court decision found that “A free negro of the African race … is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.”1

That statement appears to be about citizenship, but it is actually a statement about personhood. The Justice who penned the Court’s opinion reminded his readers that black men have always been considered “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race … and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”2

Today, those are truly shocking words in our ears – at least, I hope that they are. And as much as an objective observer may have to admit that the finding of the court was good law, few would argue that it was good ethics.

We know that the courts of our day have explicitly stated that “the word ‘person’ … does not include the unborn.”3 In the words of Dred Scott, pre-born children have been declared “beings of an inferior order … and so far inferior that they have no rights which the adult is bound to respect.”

I don’t know if this was good law. But in the analogy of Dred Scott, we consider Roe v Wade bad ethics. Contrary to the courts of this land, we hold that these people – unseen by us, without a voice, but nevertheless people – must be considered to have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among which is numbered “life”.

For us, this is a gut level, in-your-face matter of life and death. It’s not simply about statistics concerning psychological or physiological damage, nor a slippery slope leading to euthanasia, nor about unwanted children, nor about adoption – as important as these things certainly are!

For us, it is about a human being in her mother’s womb, struggling to avoid the curette and suction tube of the doctor, as has clearly been revealed in ultrasound filmography. It’s about a person’s fight to survive against all odds – and usually loosing that fight.

This hospital saved the life of my son last October, after a serious car accident. Your excellent science and staff not only kept him alive, but also helped him to regain his full faculties in a very short time. That same science and staff has increased viability to something near 23 weeks, as I understand it.

How can a hospital that is so committed to and skilled at preserving life also have a hand in purposely destroying it?4

If all the stuff of human-ness and personality are present at conception, then for us, it’s about a human being, a living person, a body and a soul, a mind, a future, a place, and a purpose. Statistical or legal nuance just don’t seem to weigh quite as much as the issue of life itself, don’t you agree?

Let me ask you a question: if your own heart reacted negatively to an 1857 finding of the Supreme Court stating that black men and women are of an inferior order, then I’m curious to know what your heart is telling you now about unborn men and women?

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark E. Rudolph, Rector
St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church

1. 1. Section 1, Para 4. of Supreme Court of the United States, 60 U.S. 393 (How.), DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD. Argued : February 11 – 14, 1856, February 15 – 18, 1856 — Decided : March 6, 1857). Note that the Constitution, Art IV, Section 2 read: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” Superseded by the 13th amendment. Source: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford.
2. 2. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Opinion_of_the_Cour…
3. 3. ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), Section IX, Subsection A, Para 3.
4. 4. Consider an analogy. Two friends are walking down the street and they hear blood-curdling screams from a nearby home.
   At that point, the two friends could enter into a debate about trespassing on private property, or the right of personal privacy in this circumstance, or the propriety of interfering in the actions of another and imposing one’s personal moral judgment on another person. All of those topics pertain to the situation.
   But as the screams continue and the matter sounds increasingly dire, one consideration overrules all others: a person is being harmed or killed! Save a life now and discuss law later! Protect the weaker against the stronger! Worry about the legal consequences, philosophical consequences, perhaps even the physical consequences for us personally – that comes later! And in many contexts, we would even call it bravery and heroism.