Home

  • Banning is Not Too Strong of a Word to Use for Quincy’s Action re the 2019 Book of Common Prayer

    In my post on the ACNA’s 2019 Book of Common Prayer, I made mention that the Diocese of Quincy had banned its use (as had Anglican Ink.)  There has been some push back to that, from VirtueOnline and Robin Jordan, that this is not what they have done.

    Although I’ll betray my Thomistic intellectual background in saying this, I think the Diocese’s actions need to be understood in conjunction with the purpose of the 2019 Book or any other Book of Common Prayer.  The title page of the 2019 Book (earlier Books are similar) reads as follows:

    The Book of Common Prayer
    and
    Administration of the Sacraments
    with
    Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church
    According to the Use of the Anglican Church in North America
    Together with
    the New Coverdale Psalter

    Although the Book can and is used for private devotions, the principal purpose of any Book of Common Prayer is its use in church, when the people of God are gathered together.  Using the word “ban” for the prohibition of its use in public worship is not too strong.  Anglicanism (on this side of the Atlantic at least) has avoided things like the prohibited books Index of Roman Catholicism; to require that “ban” prohibit its use at all goes beyond what Anglican and Episcopal churches have traditionally required of their parishioners.  (And, of course, there are many non-Prayer Book resources for private devotions as well…)  It’s worth observing that they have, in effect, banned the use of the 1662 and 1928 Books as well, but no one seems ruffled by this.

    As Tertullian used to say, every choice implies a rejection.

    Within the ACNA system, the Diocese is completely within its prerogative to ban its use in public worship.  Whether this is wise is an different topic altogether; that’s a different debate.

     

  • Some Thoughts on the 2019 Book of Common Prayer

    If I had to pick an event that transformed this site’s focus and viewership more than any other, it was my posting of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer in December 2003.  The 1662 Book was posted the following year.  Coming as they did at the start of the explosion (and partly in response to that explosion) that ultimately resulted in the Anglican Church in North America, it began a journey for me that has proven rewarding.

    It’s only fitting, therefore, that the ACNA’s own stab at the Anglican Prayer Book genre, the 2019 Book of Common Prayer, would find its way to these pages.  The term “own stab” may sound insouciant but the ACNA has not mandated the Book’s use in its own churches, and in fact one diocese has already banned it!  On the other hand we have
    Robin Jordan, who thinks that the book (and indeed the whole drift of the ACNA) is too Catholic.

    This review isn’t meant to be a comprehensive, blow-by-blow review of the new Book.  It’s meant to highlight the issues I’ve had with the various BCP’s and how the 2019 Book resolves them.

    1. I think the first issue that needs to be addressed is the sheer length of the book: the pdf I offer for download is 812 pages (although the first two are blank, evidently this comes straight from the pdf used to print the book.)  That’s admittedly an improvement over the 1979 book, which is 1001 pages long.  The 1928 BCP, by comparison, has 611 pages.  Some of the shared length is due to the fact that both Books contain the Psalter (more about that later,) but the 2019 Book doesn’t have the full “Collects, Epistles and Gospels” (it obviously has the collects) for the Holy Communion that the 1662 and 1928 books do, which take up 179 pages of the 1928 Book.  I think that this reflects the idea that there needs to be a ceremony for just about everything.  That bloat started with the 1979 book, but it also reflects the uniformitarian heritage of Anglicanism that started with the “three strikes and your out” Act of Uniformity.  The ACNA had the opportunity to prepare a supplement that would move many of these ceremonies elsewhere but passed it up.
    2. In the Benedictus, we have “In the tender compassion of our God * the dawn from on high shall break upon us, To shine on those who dwell in darkness…” (p.20).  No where is that more evident than in the Baptism ceremony, which jettisons the infamous “Baptismal Covenant.” I’ve referred to this as the “Contract on the Episcopalians,” and its excision is a cause for the ringing of church bells from sea to shining sea.  Today many would like to turn Christianity into a SJW project, but for once the trend is the other way.
    3. I see the 2019 Book solves the problem of the Venite which goes back to the early days of both the Episcopal Church and the Republic.
    4. It was a good thing to see the Comfortable Words (p. 113) in the Holy Communion.
    5. The spectre of Bill Clinton’s Eucharistic Theology and its opposition hangs over just about any celebration of the Holy Communion, and that’s certainly the case with the insertion of the following into the “Anglican Rite”: “So now, O merciful Father, in your great goodness, we ask you to bless and sanctify, with your Word and Holy Spirit, these gifts of bread and wine, that we, receiving them according to your Son
      our Savior Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.” (p. 116) Although I see the theological sense in this (I can thank Cipriano Vagaggini for that) I think that, if one reproduces the Scriptural institution of the Eucharist, any form of Bill Clinton’s Eucharistic Theology goes up in smoke.  It probably should have been left out.
    6. In the preface we are told that “Eucharistic prayers in particular were influenced by the re-discovery of patristic texts unknown at the Reformation, and often bore little resemblance to what had for centuries been the Anglican norm.”  The awareness of those goes back a long way, as evidenced by Luckock’s work.  Those informed the Novus Ordo Missae.  Unfortunately the follow-up to that in the “Renewed Ancient Text” falls a little flat.  Part of the problem, as Robin Jordan rightly points out, is the tendency for Anglican liturgists to excessively lard the ceremonial.  Jordan appeals to Cramner, but he could have just as easily appealed to Vatican II, which advocated a straightforward, easy to understand liturgy.  I personally think that the ACNA would have been better off modifying a liturgy from the NOM, calling it the “Roman Rite” and been done with it.
    7. The Holy Communion (I find the term “Holy Eucharist” correct but hard to transition to when speaking about the BCP) isn’t the only place where ceremonial larding is in evidence.  The “Ministry to the Dying” (p. 237), although it tells the minister to be flexible, seems to want to lose the race to the last breath.  After that we have “The Commendation” (p. 256), which is too long for a graveside service, especially in inclement weather and really at National Cemeteries, where time if of the essence.
    8. It was nice to see that they retained the Litany prayer “To strengthen those who stand; to encourage the faint-hearted; to raise up those who fall; and finally to beat down Satan under our feet,” (p. 95).  I’m sure the Charismatics will make the most of it.
    9. The Coverdale Psalter has always been a source of fascination in the history of the BCP, being one of the few relics of the pre-Authorised Version English Bible in current use.  The ACNA opted to update and retain it in the 2019 Book.  Personally I think the inclusion of the Psalter goes back to a time when the Psalter was the principal song and devotion book of Christians, and was frequently printed separately (I have the Psalter from this relative of mine.)  That’s not the case these days.  I think it should have been dropped from the 2019 Book.  As an aside, although I’ll get catcalls from the ‘Trads,” I think the RCC practice of reading/singing the Psalms responsorially is better than the antiphonal or responsive methods, but that’s just me.
    10. One thing the ACNA really needs to do is to proclaim its own “Authorised Version” of the Scriptures, which would make excision of the Psalter much easier.  They do that in a backhanded way by using the English Standard Version.  Roman Catholics have done this for years with the New American Bible or the Jerusalem Bible (depending upon the country.)  There are commercial possibilities too: the ACNA could have a Bible (print and software) produced as a companion to the 2019 Book, with suitable notes and lectionary.  It just might get Anglicans to read the Bible more…
    11. I don’t get with calling the Sundays between Trinity and Advent “Proper” Sundays.  Counting after Trinity or Pentecost is better, and even the Roman Catholics’ use of “Ordinary Time” is better.  It’s still a great time in the liturgical year no matter what you call it.
    12. The use of a three-year lectionary cycle is controversial with some (what isn’t?)  Adopting same probably occasioned the excision of the Epistles and Gospels, as was the case with the 1979 book.  Having lived under both one- and three-year cycles, I think the latter gives a broader view of the Scriptures, especially since few people come to weekly services.  (Twice on Sunday has been out the window for a long time…)

    In sum, I think the 2019 Book is a major step in the right direction, its weaknesses notwithstanding.  One thing’s for sure: after this, it’s hard to understand why anyone would not ditch the 1979 book once and for all…

  • Gilbert and Sullivan on the English Elites and the Iwerene Mess

    In this post on the subject on Anglican.ink, an interesting observation about some of the participants:

    Here one has to raise a very serious question viz a viz GAFCON. Why was Andy Lines (also a product of this culture and apparently abused by his mentor, Fletcher) selected and by whom to be chairman of GAFCON UK and missionary bishop? People are critical of the way Bishops in the Church of England are selected, but at least there is a selection process, with representatives, discussion and two names being put forward. Who was consulted in the case of Bishop Andy? Such lack of transparency does little to build confidence and strengthens the perception that the ‘same old same old’ is in operation as in the days of Packer and Stott and of which Dr Lloyd Jones was most critical seeing such a dominance as being detrimental to the evangelical cause.

    The appointment of Jonathan Jukes as the President of Oak Hill College appears to be more of the same as further evidence of the Anglican evangelical hegemony. Many are bewildered and bemused as to why someone who has not published anything of a theological nature, or contributed as a national or international speaker and having no advanced theological degree could be appointed? Not least as he was heading up the search committee for the new President! But Mr Jukes does have one thing going for him -the right pedigree: Winchester College, Bash Camp, St Helen’s Bishopsgate and Proclamation Trust. The suspicion invariably grows as to whether here we have another instance of the ‘old school tie’ at work.

    Sounds more like this:

    The same analogy can be applied to the recent European leadership “elections.”

    I think it’s fair to say that, in view of the activities of Jonathan Fletcher and others, the reason why it’s called “Bash Camp” has changed.

  • Pete Buttigieg, Episcopal Snob

    The first round of Democratic Presidential debates is, mercifully, over.  Winners and losers will sort themselves out in due season, but in the meanwhile let’s consider one whom the media fawned over: Pete Buttigieg, South Bend’s mayor.  He’s made quite a career doing something that none of his rivals have done to the extent that he has: taken shots at the “Religious Right.” starting with his own former governor, Mike Pence.  In a party which has gone very secular, and this is the primary stage, it’s hard to know what’s to be gained from such other than publicity (and, of course, in politics the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity.)  None of his rivals have any use for the Religious Right, so what’s the big deal?  What’s his game?

    Personally, when I hear him go after conservative Christians, it sounds like it’s a 2019 version of the old “Episcopal Snob” going public with his grievances against these people.  Buttigieg is an Episcopalian and it sounds like he’s repeating the stuff he hears at church, whether from the pulpit or in the legendary Anglican/Episcopal coffee.

    It’s something people in the Anglican/Episcopal world don’t like to admit, but it’s true: the core appeal of the Episcopal Church to those outside looking in is one of snob appeal.  The church has always attracted refugees from “fundamental” groups.  People for whom the narrow way has lost its appeal are attracted to a religion which is aesthetically pleasing and, most of the time, not dogmatic, even if they don’t have a good grasp of what they’ve gotten themselves into.  But coupled with that are the church’s elevated demographics: those who join it get to rub shoulders with people at the top of society.

    As part of the “schtick” Episcopalians who have been at it for a long time are good at putting on the proper airs when confronted with those of religious persuasions they feel are beneath them.  They tell you that they neither need nor want to do the things you feel they should do, and the impression they leave is that they’re superior for it. It can be intimidating; my wife and I have run into it when out and about on church-related errands until we mention we are good friends with certain of their fellow parishioners, at which point they beat a hasty retreat: they realize we know too much.

    Buttigieg mixes this up with current shaming and virtue-signaling techniques, using the fact that he’s gay to amplify his point.  His own schtick is that, if he “calls out” the spiritual and political failings of the unwashed, they’ll realize the error of their ways and come around to his idea.  That’s straight out of the Episcopal snob appeal playbook, only in the past both positive and negative presentation of the point was more subtle and in better taste.

    I don’t think that the “unwashed” are going to flock en masse to either his church or his campaign, let alone his political party.  He might pick off a few careerist types but not many.  And the barriers which have bedeviled his church will come back to do the same to his candidacy and his party.  Nominating a snob might have worked in 2008 with Barack Obama, but this is an angrier country.  Elizabeth Warren has a better shot at ginning up resentment, if she doesn’t get bogged down being the policy wonk.  But then again, the last Scots-Irish President, Bill Clinton, was something of a policy wonk in his own right.

    ,

  • A Lesson from Herodotus About the Perils of Invading Iran

    There’s a lot of talk these days about why we should or shouldn’t invade Iran, but I would submit this cautionary note, from all places my devotional book Month of Sundays:

    King Cyrus was on top of the world. From mountainous Persia he ruled a vast empire; he was secure enough to allow the Jews to return to their homeland. In doing so he was God’s instrument, doing his will.

    But Cyrus had other choices to make, too. A man named Artembares had an idea: that the Persians abandon their mountainous homeland and settle in a richer part of their new empire, probably what is now Iraq. Cyrus told them that Artembares and his friends could do what they wanted, but that he wasn’t going anywhere: “’Soft countries,’ he said, ‘breed soft men. It is not the property of any one soil to produce fine fruits and good soldiers too.’ The Persians had to admit that this was true and that Cyrus was wiser than they; so they left him, and chose rather to live in a rugged land and rule than to cultivate rich plains and be subject to others.” (Herodotus, The Histories)

    The Jews returned to their land and began to rebuild their temple. Cyrus’ descendants would rule from their rugged land for another two hundred years. And Cyrus’ decision still works: one reason why the U.S. attacked Iraq and not Iran (Persia) was because of the rugged terrain from whence Cyrus came.

    We always want the “easy way” out, and our lives to always be smooth sailing. But rugged terrain—physically and in life—can build character and endurance in a way that nothing else can. Jesus Christ won us freedom on an old rugged cross: don’t throw it away for easy street!

    Iran’s mountainous terrain has always been a barrier to it being conquered.  Not an insurmountable one, to be sure, as Alexander the Great, the Islamic conquerors (which engender a great deal of resentment amongst many Iranians) or Tamerlane showed.  But it’s a major problem, especially with the broad-front nature of modern warfare.

    It’s also helped the country develop a singular civilization, one that has had a greater impact (especially via its diaspora) than most Americans are aware of.  Iran, like Russia and China, has an educational system which emphasizes the sciences, and even with the brain drain they’ve experienced, they’re still a technological powerhouse.  Invading Iran isn’t something to be taken lightly; I hope American emotionalism doesn’t get the best of us.

    ,

  • Bethesda-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church: The Unauthorised Tour

    via Bethesda-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church: The Unauthorised Tour

    ,

  • The Cry of the Poor

    ,

  • Revivalistic Christianity Requires a Christian Society? Not Quite.

    Albert Mohler makes an interesting point:

    Third, looking specifically at the baptism numbers, the decline is both remarkable and lamentable. The most obvious insight is that we do not care as much about reaching lost people as we once did. That would be the observation that should cause Southern Baptists greatest concern. We will consider that question below. The second observation that would quickly come is that our methods of evangelism are not as effective as they once were. Honestly, that argument is beyond refute. Southern Baptist growth was largely driven by revivalism and its programs. We should not be surprised that revivalism is most effective in a context of Christian cultural dominance.

    I think he’s half right.

    Finally admitting that the future of the Southern Baptists–to say nothing of American Christianity in general–won’t be forwarded by a revivalistic model is something that’s gone down hard for many, and not just Baptists either.  Pentecostals and Charismatics keep looking for that great revival to “win American back for God,” but it’s a Pickett’s Charge approach that will get Pickett’s Charge results.

    But to say that revivalistic Christianity is facilitated by “Christian cultural dominance” leads to a chicken and egg problem.  Which comes first: the revival or Christian cultural dominance?  I think that American history, from the days of Finney (who brought eighteenth century religious torpor to a grinding halt) to the SBC’s own efforts to convert the Booze Belt to the Bible Belt, would put the revival first.

    What revivalistic Christianity does require is an open society where the Gospel can be set forth in an open forum to “poker playing dog” kinds of people, and get an open response.  The openness is fast fading, driven by such things as restrictions by social media, the “shaming and doxxing” culture of Christianity’s enemies, and the heavy hand of the state.  Coming up with a “Plan B” to something that’s worked for two centuries is what’s flummoxed Evangelical leaders, Baptists and otherwise.

    Fortunately we have the examples of places like Iran and China to show us that you don’t need an open society to have the growth of the church.  Getting that message through to our leadership is another story altogether.

    But there’s one problem Mohler neglected altogether: the ethnic makeup of the SBC.  Being as white as it is, it’s just in the crosshairs for the assault we’re seeing on the church, demographic and otherwise.  (The Episcopal Church, for those of you tempted to crow, is even whiter.)  What we need to do more than anything else is get out of the way and let those whose numbers swell our ranks to take the lead.

    Ah, but that’s the really tricky part…

    ,

  • Renunciation is Central to Christianity, But You’d Never Know It

    I recently had an interesting back and forth with a guy I went to prep school with on “Renouncing Privilege.”  Evidently he and I have a different take on what that means, as evidenced by his comment:

    Many of the students were, and probably still are wealthy, still privileged. I would not try to make the point that the young men became followers of Gandhi, just that they recognized an abusive power that they had the means to abolish and voted accordingly.

    Some of my idea comes from the current assault on “white privilege,” the only logical solution being that white people just step aside and let everyone else run things.  (I document here how some well-heeled and bi-coastal white people have tried to get around that obvious conclusion for their children’s’ benefit.)  But much of my view on the subject is conditioned by the New Testament itself:

    “I tell you,” answered Jesus, “that at the New Creation, ‘when the Son of Man takes his seat on his throne of glory,’ you who followed me shall be seated upon twelve thrones, as judges of the twelve tribes of Israel. Every one who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or land, on account of my Name, will receive many times as much, and will ‘gain Immortal Life.’ But many who are first now will then be last, and those who are last will be first.  (Matthew 19:28-30 TCNT)

    Calling the people and his disciples to him, Jesus said: “If any man wishes to walk in my steps, let him renounce self, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, and whoever, for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, will lose his life shall save it. (Mark 8:34-35 TCNT)

    I’ve spent time on the rich young ruler elsewhere.

    In the past Christians have understood what this meant.  Consider this from J.N.D. Kelly’s Jerome:

    In the fourth century it was common for really serious Christians, at their baptism or when they experienced a deeper conversion, to break with the world, abandoning career, marriage and material possessions in order (in the expressive phrase of Cyprian of Carthage) ‘to hold themselves free for God and for Christ.’  The ascetic strain which had been present in Christianity from the start, and which in the west tended to set a premium on virginity, inevitably received a powerful practical impulse with the disappearance of persecution and the emergence of a predominantly Christian society where much of the Christian colouring was skin-deep.

    That’s something that advocates of the “Benedict Option” should keep in mind.

    In any case such is virtually unknown in American Christianity, which is too hog-tied to upward mobility (and that link is a big reason why American Christians do what they do politically, on both sides of the spectrum.)

    Since straight-up renunciation doesn’t go down well, is there another way to meet the challenge of the Gospel?  One comes from the Anglican/Episcopal George Conger, who has tried to deal with this by putting this verse into practice:

    The servant who knows his master’s wishes and yet does not prepare and act accordingly will receive many lashes; while one who does not know his master’s wishes, but acts so as to deserve a flogging, will receive but few. From every one to whom much has been given much will be expected, and from the man to whom much has been entrusted the more will be demanded.  (Luke 12:47-48 TCNT)

    He explains the “critical moment” for his commitment to “givebacks” here, in an encounter with then candidate George H.W. Bush:

    I commented on that idea years ago:

    If one were to name the Episcopal Church’s strongest point from a practical standpoint, it was this: the emphasis on the importance of “give back”. It’s something I miss in a Pentecostal church. This isn’t to say that Pentecostals are not willing to help others–they certainly are, and are for many reasons better positioned to do so than Episcopalians–but the context is entirely different, and it doesn’t percolate to the upper reaches of the organisation the way one would like it to. But that’s also generational: baby boomers, for all the talk and their self-righteous insistence of making the next generation volunteer, are mostly too self-centred to know what true give-back is.

    That said, I think that the road to that needs to run through some kind of renunciation.

    Although there are many people who don’t have a lot to renounce (that’s another lesson that comes from many years in a Pentecostal church) American Christianity would do well to learn from Our Lord on renunciation, if for no other reason than that, if things go south, renunciation will be a lot easier than having it taken away from you.

    , ,

  • My Response to “Renouncing Privilege” — Chet Aero Marine

    I’ve posted elsewhere on my prep school, and it was a pleasure to hear that someone else thought enough to do the same: Tico Vogt, two years my senior, has done so in his post Renouncing Privilege. There’s a lot of ground to cover here; I’ll try to be as succinct as possible. It shouldn’t […]

    via My Response to “Renouncing Privilege” — Chet Aero Marine

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started