ADVENT: 'I do wish Jesus would come back, preferably in a massive ball of fire through the ceiling of the church.'

Tucker Carlson, American political commentator, once said on his Sunday church experience:

You'll never meet nicer people. If you needed someone to hold your wallet, or if you were lost in an unfamiliar neighborhood and had to duck into a stranger's house to use the bathroom, you could do a whole lot worse...No one has better manners.

And that may be the problem. There's a notable lack of urgency...Jesus may have promised he'd come back someday, but in [my church] you don't get the feeling he really meant it. Nor do you hear a lot about sin. Lust, hatred, gluttony, pride, envy -- those are dramatic emotions. ...

The typical sermon leaves the impression that all would be well in this world if only people could manage to be reasonable with each other. Gentlemanly. Thoughtful.

There's nothing necessarily bad about any of this. (I remain [a member], with no plans to change.) But every once in a while, as I shift in my pew listening to one of our unusually well-educated preachers expand on the Aramaic understanding of discipleship, I do wish Jesus would come back, preferably in a massive ball of fire through the ceiling of the church.

Spiritually, I'm nowhere near ready to face something like that. But it'd be worth it for the shock value....Dead religions don't give people the creeps...But Christianity still does. What a relief. It's nice to see that our faith still scares people.

He is an Episcopalian, apparently.

H/T My new friend and colleague at Christ Church NYC, Clifford Swartz. Clifford quoted this in his sermon on Sunday night, and I thought: that's totally worth stealing. :)

_______________________

On the 1662 Book of Extraordinary Prayer (#3)

How serious are you about God? Especially if you know that you are going to receive Holy Communion this Sunday? How committed are you to reconciling with your neighbor? How ruthless are you at rooting out evil and injustice in your life? How passionate are you about being 'open to grief' and about receiving 'the benefit of absolution'.

In other words, how 'hard-core' are you?

Let me explain where this is coming from. G.K. Chesterton said of tradition in Orthodoxy:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

So, in resistance to the arrogant oligarchy of the living, I'm going to keep my series going on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. As I've said, I am not used to this Prayer Book, but I am very used to the Protestant and Reformed theology of the 1662 edition. So it has been a delight to be to rediscover this book as I read it through.

I said recently that the students in my Bible Study group called the Prayer Book truly 'hard core'. Let me give you an example. Take a look at what you are required to do in the lead up to receiving The Communion. Please, I beg you to take a moment to read this:

When the Minister giveth warning for the celebration of the holy Communion, (which he shall always do upon the Sunday, or some Holy-day, immediately preceding,) after the Sermon or Homily ended, he shall read this Exhortation following.

DEARLY beloved, on [October 7] next I purpose, through God's assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously and devoutly disposed the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; to be by them received in remembrance of his meritorious Cross and Passion; whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins, and are make partakers of the Kingdom of heaven. Wherefore it is our duty to render most humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God our heavenly Father, for that he hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament. Which being so divine and comfortable a thing to them who receive it worthily, and so dangerous to them that will presume to receive it unworthily; my duty is to exhort you in the mean season to consider the dignity of that holy mystery, and the great peril of the unworthy receiving thereof; and so to search and examine your own consciences, (and that nor lightly, and after the manner of dissemblers with God; but so) that ye may come holy and clean to such a heavenly Feast, in the marriage-garment required by God in holy Scripture, and be received as worthy partakers of that holy Table.

The way and means thereto is; First, to examine your lives and conversations by the rule of God's commandments; and whereinsoever ye shall perceive yourselves to have offended, either by will, word, or deed, there to bewail your own sinfulness, and to confess yourselves to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life. And if ye shall perceive your offences to be such as are not only against God, but also against your neighbours; then ye shall reconcile yourselves unto them; being ready to make restitution and satisfaction, according to the uttermost of your powers, for all injuries and wrongs done by you to any other; and being likewise ready to forgive others that have offended you, as ye would have forgiveness of your offences at God's hand: for otherwise the receiving of the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your damnation. Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime, repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy Table; lest, after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the devil enter into you, as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquities, and bring you to destruction both of body and soul.

And because it is requisite, that no man should come to the holy Communion, but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.

Read that second paragraph again! Go ahead. It'll take a minute.

• Is this something you'd like to be reminded of before communion?
• Would that scare you, if that was read to you the Sunday before communion?
  
• Is this approach to God true to the gospel?
• Are we tough enough in the way we discipline believers?
• Is this over the top? (And we've got it right?)
• Or are we underwhelming (And they got it right?)

Discuss. Or pray. Whichever seems more fitting.

___________________

On Lay Presidency at The Lord's Supper

A gentleman at my church asked me for something good to read re Lay Presidency? Arguments for and against. Can anyone suggest the best thing to read if a young man wanted to weigh these issues up? Particularly from an Anglican perspective? Perhaps an online document? Or a book.

Don't get smart on me and suggest the Bible! (I know what you are thinking...)

Something that takes into account the Bible as well as history, Anglican practice, unity etc etc.

__________________________
Pic on Flickr by 96dpi.

On the 1662 Book of Extraordinary Prayer (#1)

A few years back, my church very kindly presented to me a personal copy of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) on my ordination to the Presbyterate (Priesthood) . I have other copies of the BCP, but the print is so tiny that my eyes hurt to read it. But I now have a readable copy.

So, anyways, I thought I'd write a series of posts sharing my thoughts on the 1662 BCP as I read though it. I have no other agenda here except to point out things of interest to me.

The catalyst for my interest in common prayer is the Hoo Haa of the Anglican Church . I ought to say that I have previously written about my 'journey' with liturgy HERE. So you can click on that and read if you want to.

Here is my first observation on the 1662: The writers of the Preface, in speaking about some alterations from previous books, wrote this-

For we are fully persuaded in our judgements (and we here profess it to the world) that the Book, as it stood before established by Law, doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound Doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a good Conscience use and submit unto, or which is not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the same; if it shall be allowed such just and favourable construction as in common equity ought to be allowed to all human Writings, especially such as are set forth by Authority, and even to the very best translations of the holy Scripture itself.

I didn't do a lot of thinking about what it means to be 'Anglican' in previous parishes. There are cultural, historical, geographic and personal reasons why that was the case. In every good way, I thought of myself only as a Christian; as an adopted child of God. If anything else, perhaps I thought of myself as a reformed evangelical. But I did not think a whole lot about being Anglican.

But here in America, the Christian world is so very denominationalized. You cannot really get by without taking in account heritage, and why a person chose the church they did. Young and old alike, people ask me about being Anglican. All of which I found quite puzzling.

One question I am regularly asked is:

• What is the 'Anglican position' on 'X'?

It's a good question. It fascinates me (in part) because there often isn't an Anglican-specific answer. Who is the 'Anglican Church' to give us the 'Anglican position'? Is it my rector's thoughts? A congregation's? Is it a Bishop's position? Then which Bishop? Is it the Archbishop of Canterbury? Is it the deliberations of my Diocesan Synod? Or is it popular scholarship? ('I'm for Stott'. 'I'm for Wright'. 'I'm for Packer'.) Is the 'Anglican Position' found in Roman Catholicism for Christology, and in the Protestant Reformation for Soteriology?

The question itself, without a concrete answer has caused some here in the U.S. to consider Roman Catholicism. I have written HERE about that. The appeal for them is that there appears to be an actual answer to the question. What does it mean to be Roman Catholic? Discover the Magisterium of the Church. (Says the Catechism: "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.").

I can't tell you how much this bothers me. Here is the rub for me: What happens if, while searching and then even finding an answer in the Magisterium of Rome, you discover a deeply flawed position or teaching? What if the desire to have an answer ends up overriding the answer itself? Put simply: I may desperately want an answer to the question. I may want it so much that I am willing to accept all sorts of crazy and weird revisions. For example, the Immaculate Conception of Mary? Hello?

So, what is the 'Anglican position' on 'X'?

The simplest answer is this: "The 'Anglican Position' on 'X' is the Christian position on 'X'. I do not mean to be arrogant or obscurantist. I mean to say that when someone says: What's the Anglican Position? I say -- Well, what does the Bible say? What does Jesus command? What do the prophets and the apostles say? If we can, together with all the saints both now and throughout history, submit to the Bible's teaching, then we have ourselves an 'Anglican position'.

I believe that Alister McGrath calls it "Christianity's dangerous idea."

I know that leaves many questions open. But Article 6 of the 39 Articles, simply says this:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

In other words, Anglicans are a Bible people (or at least they are meant to be.) So I'm thinking that if you are an Anglican, go and read your Bible.

Really.

Now.

Go.

Go and 'read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest' it.

And then begin a lifelong journey in learning with others. Marking and digesting the work of trustworthy men and women throughout history who have also submitted themselves to 'read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest' the Bible.

But before you go, make sure you pray the Prayer for the Second Sunday in Advent:

BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

See if you find an Anglican position. (It's the Christian one).

Discuss.

________________________
Further Reading: Dr Paul Barnett's Ten Elements of Historic Anglicanism.

The BBC, Sex and the Anglican Church

I just read this review on the BBC website trying to break down the issues at the heart the Anglican Church 'rift'.

The first thing I noticed: there is no section on "Approach to Scripture". This section appears to be subsumed into the section "The need for a shared universal doctrine". Methinks they are not the same thing. And, as most keep pointing out, approach to Scripture is the issue at the heart of the 'rift', and not sexuality.

But the other thing that astounded me was the very slippery description on the"Liberal" position on "Active Homosexuality":

LIBERAL: When we talk about human sexuality we are actually talking about questions of the goodness of the body, and the goodness of creation. Sexuality is part of a person's being. People are called to be in relationships, sometimes sexual relationships, and that's how we understand the goodness of creation. We are emerging from 1700 years in the West of a deeply distrustful stance toward creation and everything that creation contains, including the human body and sexual relationships (even those traditionally called "marriage"). A dominant view of the Church in that time period has been that a celibate life is closer to the angelic life than the married life, and that marriage was for those who could not successfully aspire to the celibate life. Such an attitude is based on a profound unease, or dis-ease, about creation. So ideas about "active homosexuality" - even framing the question that way - betray a view that is still being shaped by an uncertainty about whether the creation and the body are in fact good or not.

My response is:

Huh???

Isn't this the bedrock conservative position? But with a sneaky Bait'n'Switch twist at the end? Isn't the conservative position that the Bible teaches in "the goodness of the body" and "the goodness of creation"? Isn't the conservative position that sex is good and healthy and to be expressed regularly in marriage? (A point made in the conservative entry). Don't the conservatives also distrust (and even 'condemn') historical positions that are distrustful of the goodness of creation?

We believe all that.

But we don't believe that a person in Christ then has a blank check on sexuality. By no means.

Have I misread this?

_____________________
Pic on Flickr by Yley Coyote.

Anglicanism: Thegreat thing about it is...

So Tom Wright made an appearance on The Colbert Report here in the States. He handled himself very well. You can view the video HERE. (H/T Justin Taylor) He is on the show to promote his new book, Surprised by Hope.

(As as aside, I went to hear the Bishop in NYC 2 months ago. I asked him in Q and A if there was anyone in the evangelical world arguing with him on this one. Surprised by Hope is far less controversial that many of his other writings. I asked him if there were any scholars defending the Platonic version of 'going to heaven when you die'. He was kind and said it was a good question. And his answer was basically, 'No, not that he knew of'. Interesting.)

Anyways, here is what I thought was interesting in the Colbert interview. Colbert is a Roman Catholic. And this exchange took place (at 4 minutes):

Colbert: And is this your reading, or is this Anglican theology?
Wright: The great thing about Anglicans is that we have no theology of our own, and so if something is true, the Anglicans believe it. That’s the theory anyway. It would be nice it is did work.
Colbert: That’s what I say. That's what I say.
Wright: No. You chaps [Catholics] have stuff that you look up in these big books all the time. Anyway, the point is this…

Discuss.

Some Questions to get you going.

• What do you think he means by Anglicans 'have no theology of our own'?
• Is he right?
• If he is right, is it a virtue or a vice of Anglicanism?

Related reading: Dr Paul Barnett's Ten Elements of Historic Anglicanism.

_________________________

CONCLUSION: The Ten Elements of Historic Anglicanism

Click HERE for the link to all the posts in this series. (If you want to link this to your Blog, this is your URL). And here, for your overviewing pleasure, are Dr. Barnett's Ten Elements (You can click on each one) -

#1: Historic Anglicanism is Biblical
#2: Historic Anglicanism is Protestant
#3: Historic Anglicanism is catholic
#4: Historic Anglicanism is Reformed
#5: Historic Anglicanism is Liturgical
#6: Historic Anglicanism is Evangelistic and Pastoral
#7: Historic Anglicanism is Episcopal and Parochial
#8: Historic Anglicanism is of Rational Ethos
#9: Historic Anglicanism affirms Creation, Society and the Common Good
#10: Historic Anglicanism is an Open Fellowship

Dr. Barnett, concludes on a personal note:

'These are elements to be appreciated and valued, as a motivation for a free expression of ministry, both in church on Sunday, as well as during the week. With the opportunity to experience other traditions I have come the more to value my own. In this regard, I echo and endorse the sentiment of J.I. Packer that, "Anglicanism embodies the richest, truest, wisest heritage in Christendom." * I commend it to us as something to be valued and appreciated and out of which we exercise our ministries.'

* J.I. Packer, "Speculating in Anglican Futures" in New Directions (Sept 1995), 6

Three concluding thoughts from me:

First, I can see how these Ten Elements are significant. Personally, I like being a Christian in the Anglican tradition. And Dr. Barnett has raised things that many of us do not think a whole lot about.

The natural problem is that the present expression of Anglicanism is (as everyone agrees), very messy. The question that is often asked is: "Has the Anglican experiment failed?" My own answer to that, for what it's worth, is that Anglicans are as messy as the human heart is. Anglicans mirror the human condition. And in a strange way, I give thanks to God for this. For isn't it true that Israel's fallen-ness is on every page of the Bible? And yet, God intends good for the saving of many lives. Within the Biblical narrative, God raised up some (a remnant), and then One (a Messiah) in the midst of all that messiness in order to redeem many lives. My denomination, I say in humility, reflects the truth of this Gospel. Pray for us.

Second, I'd like your comments here (I feel I don't have sufficient knowledge). In order to justify Packer's superlatives ('richest, truest, wisest'), we'd have to now show that:

• All ten points are, in fact, valuable;
• That no other heritage has all the ten points;
• That there are no other valuable elements in another heritage that Anglicans don't have.

Third, some links were sent to me that are worth including in a post-

• Byron sent me Garrison Keillor on Liturgy (I went to see Keillor in NYC in December! V funny.)
• Byron also linked to a person who asks Why liturgy? ('from a slightly 'higher' Anglican'.)
• And early on, Hughesi and Jess wanted to invite you all to hear from J.I. Packer directly, as he explains in 7 reasons 'Why I am an Anglican.' (Cost: $CDN3:00 I haven't listened yet.)

Any concluding thoughts?

_________________
Pic of Paul Barnett.

#10: Historic Anglicanism is an open fellowship

This is the final post from Dr Barnett on his Ten Elements of Historic Anglicanism:

"Tenth, likewise it is an open fellowship, not restrictive of membership nor exclusivist or sectarian in temper. This provides for a broad accessibility to the church of those outside its active membership. A steady flow has come to it from other churches, which historically had separated from it, as well as from the non-believing community."

I wrote 2 posts about welcoming HERE.

_____________________

Pic on Flickr by P Kinski.

#9: Historic Anglicanism affirms creation, society and the common good.

If you've just joined us, read the introductory posts HERE.
__________________________

#9, without commentary -- (but feel free to comment):

"Ninth, in common with other churches of the Protestant Reformation, "historic" Anglicanism has affirmed laypersons, their role in marriage and the family, and their civic vocation within society. Thus "historic Anglicanism" affirms both creation and society. It is concerned with the common good, for the "welfare of the city," to use Jeremiah’s words. Its intercessions are directed to that end and in accord with 1 Tim 2:1:

('I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way')."

Thoughts?

_____________________
Pic on Flickr by Automatt.

#8: Historic Anglicanism is of rational ethos

If you've just joined us, read the introductory posts HERE.
__________________________

In the words of Dr. Barnett:

"Eight, historically speaking, "historic" Anglicanism has been of rational ethos. It has been prepared to engage in study and debate. Anglican evangelism has been associated with apologetics, eschewing manipulative or unworthy methods of bringing people to Christ. C.S. Lewis and J.R.W Stott come to mind in this regard, giving thousands in their generations and beyond a ground for hope in the intellectual and moral acceptability of the Christian faith."

I know that this is an appeal for me. My experience of Anglicanism has been what they call 'low church': Unadorned, but truthful. Formal, and not chaotic. Straight-forward, but in no way anti-intellectual. I was never asked to believe things that couldn't be simply shown from Scripture and reason. And we have never been asked to 'check our brains at the door'. On the contrary, we were encouraged to learn and debate as much or more than we could handle. I also like how there appears to be very few 'litmus test' verses unfairly used to prove your spiritual metal (let the reader understand).

I am reminded of the Apostle Paul's words to the starry-eyed Corinthians:

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Two more to go...
_________________________

#7: Historic Anglicanism is episcopal and parochial

If you've just joined us, read the introductory posts HERE.

Dr. Barnett has written many books. Is the New Testament Reliable? is a good start to Dr. Barnett's work on the New Testament. But the book that I have kept coming back to over the years as a reference and a resource is Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity. Shameless plug.
______________

Number 7 from Paul Barnett:

'Seventh, "historic" Anglicanism is episcopal and parochial, requiring that only those who are duly recognized by the bishop engage in preaching in the congregation and in ministering the sacraments among the people. The role of ordaining and licensing in churches is placed in the hands of the bishop. Provision is made for the deposition of "evil ministers", (Article 26) which regrettably, has been under-utilised. The existence of the episcopate has provided laity aggrieved with their ministers with a place of appeal, sometimes justified, sometimes not.'

The point here is that pastors are "men under authority". And that authority is local. A minister is not a law unto himself, and he is not to act as such. There is someone who, under Jesus, gave them the authority they have, and therefore they have someone to whom they are to 'report'. There is a path for discipline (as well as support). Churches that have pastors who have no authority over them are in great danger. (And by oversight, I don't mean a bunch of peers to whom they 'share' with occasionally).

But Dr. Barnett opens a door when he says that one aspect of the 39 Articles has been 'under-utilized'. That is, Anglicans haven't kept their own 'rules' (not just the one mentioned here).

The current mess in the Anglican church (and especially here in the US) has been, in part, a failure of the Bishops and leaders to be faithful the the Faith Once Delivered. If the Bishop is not faithful to the Scripture, then that means that Episcopos can't function properly.

That's called a crisis, as far as I can tell.

One of Anglican proportions.

___________
Pic by Flickr by petervanallen.

#6: Historic Anglicanism is Evangelistic and Pastoral

If you've just joined us, read the introductory posts HERE.
________________________

This one is interesting: Dr. Barnett makes a his proposal brief, but I can't help feeling that he is speaking to the rise of the 'seeker' service and to the Mega-church phenomena. And yet he calls us to be evangelistic like we are supposed to be! Dr. Barnett says:

'Sixth, the Ordinal, Catechism and Occasional Services commit Anglican ministers to a ministry which is evangelistic and pastoral, expressed in terms which are biblical and theologically orthodox. However, the evangelism envisaged in not of the 'hit and run' kind, independent of the continuing life of the local church. It is settled, routine and reoccurring, within the parochial setting.'

Re Pastoral:
I can see how Anglican churches are set up to be pastoral. When an Anglican Church is not pastoral, something is usually wrong. For whatever (good or bad) reasons, Anglicans don't do Mega-church. The largest US Episcopal churches are 2000 or so. But they are rare. The largest Anglican churches in Australia are about 1300 or so (but even then, they are broken into smaller gatherings with their own preachers and pastoral oversight). Anglicans, if they are growing, grow by multiplying congregations (not growing larger).

So unlike a Mega church, most people in an Anglican church can immediately call (or call on) a minister whom they actually know. They know their pastors, and their pastors know them. They are able to keep a stronger level of accountability going, as well as discipline and encouragement. Their ministers will often go to homes to see the people they pastor.

I know a young guy who was going to a large Mega church in the States. He was going simply because of the giftedness of the preacher. While there, he decided that he wanted to go into 'professional' ministry and be trained for it, but he knew no pastors or elders at the Mega church he was attending (classic problem). So he sent an email to the church office asking for oversight and got an automated reply! So he left the Mega-church that week. No one with oversight at the Mega-church knew he was not there anymore; because basically no one knew him (expect for a few peers in his Home Group Bible Study). He began attending an functioning evangelical Anglican Church (not in NY). He got involved, and has real - and not imagined - weekly pastoral oversight.

I can see how that comes straight out of the Bible:

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Re Evangelistic:
I would have liked more exploration of this one from Dr. Barnett. It seems to me that to keep a church evangelistic is one of the most difficult tasks that a pastor faces. It requires constant refocusing. It requires ministers to keep saying unpopular things. It requires a re-ordering of one's calender, and saying 'No' to some things so that we can say 'Yes' to the preaching of the Gospel. It is very difficult, and requires a level of leadership that many in pastoral ministry do not have. And yet, Dr. Barnett is suggesting here that if ministers really do what we are supposed to do (in ordination, in teaching and in occasional church), then evangelism will be at the front and center of our life as a church.

I might go and read again the words said at my ordination. That will help me to refocus for evangelism.

One more thing: I'd be interested to know what Dr. Barnett is contrasting here. What is the 'hit and run' kind that he speaks about? And how is it different from Historic Anglicanism? Is that the kind of tract-based evangelism? Or something else?

Thoughts?

________________________
Pic on Flickr by tadj.

#5: Historic Anglicanism is liturgical

Please read the introductory posts HERE. Here is #5:
__________________________

'Fifth, this [Historic Anglicanism] is a liturgical church. Anglicanism employs liturgy to several ends: to secure regular acknowledgment from the church that sinners are saved only in Christ; to express the congregation's adherence to the catholic faith in the use of the historic creeds; to express the need of the congregation to hear the Bible in both Testaments read systematically, giving a special place to the Psalms as articulating biblical piety; and to provide for prayer which is carefully crafted theologically and which reflects international, national as well as local needs.

Liturgy is not used for art's sake (that is, aesthetically), but for truth's sake (that is, theologically), in order to retain the Bible, the catholic creeds and the reformed confessions at the centre of the church's confession of faith.

And it uses liturgy for the sake of laity, to protect the congregation from the whims of the minister and to provide for the voice of the congregation to be heard articulating the faith, and not just the voice of the minister.'

*** Dr Barnett has more to say by way of reflection. Click on the comments HERE.

A couple of thoughts from me:

For some, it wouldn't matter what good reasons were proposed, they will not get 'into' liturgy. But Dr Barnett's list in the first paragraph has some power for me. I find it interesting that a liberal church that employs liturgy may read more of the bible in their services than an evangelical church with not a lot of liturgy.

Here is where I am at: I have had a love-hate relationship with liturgy over many years. As a teenager, I found myself frustrated that liturgy seemed perfectly placed for lip-service only. I always wanted to be captivated in church and gripped by God and his mission, and liturgy seemed not to captivate me. I'm sure that I was not alone.

Then, at age 20, I went to St Barnabas Broadway. Barneys was relaxed and joyful and gripped by God's love. And yet they employed liturgy to good effect. The liturgy was a servant of the congregation, not its master. There was an energy and a momentum to the service. Things were explained, but not over-explained. There was talk, but no meta-talk. I invited my friends who didn't know Jesus, and many people become Christians there.

Here at Christ Church NYC, we are definitely liturgical. And we seek to employ liturgy as a servant of the congregation. We use it for many of the reasons that Dr. Barnett has listed above. While it doesn't come naturally for some to use set forms in church, there are many who come to Christ Church because of the liturgy (and especially the younger people!) They say that they are tired of listening to the ramblings of a pastor based on what came to mind while eating breakfast. And, as Dr. Barnett says, here, they are protected "from the whims of the minister".

In this case, me.

And thankful we all are for it. :)

Some questions you might like to comment on:

• Are there any of you that have had positive experiences of liturgy? Let us know.
  
• What do you think of the comment that liturgy is "not used for art's sake"?
• What do you gain and lose by letting go of liturgical services?
  

_____________________
Pic on Flickr by spamily.

#4: Historic Anglicanism is reformed

Please read the introductory posts HERE.

#4 without a commentary:

'However, fourth, "historic" Anglicanism is reformed, articulating the great biblical insights of the reformers Luther and Calvin, that sinners, which all people as the offspring of Adam are, are righteous before God "only for the merit of Christ, the sacrifice for sin", not on account of their works, or deservings. (Articles 9, 11).

Only two sacraments or signs of effectual grace - baptism and the Lord's Supper - are recognised, both of which were ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ, both of which take their character from the gospel. (Article 25).

These sacraments, however, are seen as having a significant place in this church. Both are subject of significant liturgies, that of the Lord's Supper reaching great heights of theology and devotion. Their high place within Anglican order is secured by the simple instrumentality whereby the one called and sent to teach the congregation - the priest/minister - is the one who administers these effectual signs.'

Thoughts?

____________________
Pic on Flickr by newfoundland rcmp.

#3: Historic Anglicanism is catholic

Please read the introductory posts HERE. In this article, Dr Paul Barnett echo's J.I. Packer that Anglicanism is the 'richest, truest, wisest heritage in Christendom.' As I type, I realize that this case can only be made by hearing out all ten elements. There are many churches that are biblical (#1) and protestant (#2). More will have to be said. I'm looking forward to reading the next 7. Make comments along the way!
_______________________

We work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Yes. But has God been gracious to us to stop us wondering down our own individualistic path? Indeed, he has. Here is Number 3:

'Third, this church (Historic Anglicanism) recognises that great truths of biblical revelation have been secured in creeds and confessions at moments of high theological controversy. Significantly, Articles 1-5 affirm the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation and resurrection of Christ which were in dispute in the early centuries. Thus, "historic" Anglicanism is committed to views on trinity and christology which are catholic, that is, 'according to the whole' church, as opposed to heretical or sectional teachings. The creeds - the Apostles', the Nicene and the Athanasian - are important as expressions of "catholic" Christianity, to which "historic" Anglicanism has committed itself.'

Someone pointed out to me that there is a significant deviation between Historic Anglicanism and it's current expression here in the US and Canada (and it appears to have moved a long way from the creeds). It is worth pointing out that the battle that currently exists is, in part, a calling back to the creeds.

Has anyone else noticed that the creeds are making a comeback? I was at a church recently that was far from traditional. And yet they wanted to embrace the past. What did they do at this church? They embraced and recited the Apostle's Creed.

There is not a week that goes by at our church were one of the creeds is not affirmed and read.

________________________
Pic on Flickr by Eglantine.

#2: Historic Anglicanism is Protestant

Here, Dr. Barnett echo's the sentiment of J.I.Packer that, "Anglicanism embodies the richest, truest, wisest heritage in Christendom." A strong claim, right? Such a strong claim requires a hearing. Read the introductory posts HERE.
______________________

Dr. Barnett continues with his second element:

'Second, it is protestant. Article 6 states, "...whatsoever is not read therein," that is, in the Bible, "is not required an any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith." The church upholds the right of the individual to read and understand the Bible for his salvation, as opposed to salvation truth being mediated by the church.'

I know several people who are considering Roman Catholicism. Personally, I don't understand the appeal to swim the Tiber. But I have tried to listen and speak to those who have. I have written (cheekily) about the appeal of becoming Roman Catholic in a previous post (Click HERE.)

The truth is this: I can grasp that some want the certainty of a centralized and unified interpretation of Scripture; an authority outside of me to determine the meaning of Scripture; something to mitigate against a million individual interpretations.

But I simply cannot see how Rome answers the questions that some are asking. Turning to Rome seems to raise more questions than it answers.

I read the New Testament and it appears that God seems to take a risk on people: God expects that each believer, reading his or her own Bible; accountable to pastors and elders; mindful of the great thinkers of the past, and in faith in Jesus our Lord, will 'work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.' More than that, God promises to 'work in you, to will and to work for his good pleasure.'

The point here is that being Anglican allows for this very activity...

All, it appears, without a Pontiff in Rome!

______________________
Pic on Flickr by *Toshio*.

#1: Historic Anglicanism is Biblical.

The following is an article by Dr. Paul Barnett called: "Ten Elements of Historic Anglicanism". Dr. Barnett was the Anglican Bishop of North Sydney from 1990-2001. Dr. Barnett's Ten Elements were inspired by the comments of J.I. Packer in "Speculating in Anglican Futures" in New Directions (Sept 1995), 6. Read the Introductory posts HERE.
_____________________

Let's begin. The first is significant:

'First and foremost this Anglicanism (Historic Anglicanism) locates its final authority in matters pertaining to salvation in the Holy Scriptures (Article 6). The church, as "witness and keeper of the holy writ", has "power to decree rites and authority in matters of controversy." (Article 20) Nonetheless, churches may err and have erred within history.

Thus the church must defer to the Bible in all matters relating to salvation and, indeed, in all matters relating to rites, ceremonies and controversies.

Thus the Anglican Church is biblical as to the basis of its authority. At ordination the presbyter/minister is given a Bible as the instrument of ministry. The Bishop's charge in the Ordinal, along with the questions and answers, make it abundantly clear that Christian ministry has the Bible as the basis and means of ministry.'

The 39 Articles are clear: If it is not in the Bible, it is not required. The 6th Article says:

'...whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.'

This is liberating, for it means that no person, pastor or power may burden a believer with the imaginations of their own heart.

____________________
Pic on Flickr by diane leigh.

Anglicanism: the richest, truest, wisest heritage in Christendom?

[This is an introductory post to a series that can be read by clicking HERE.]

When I was maturing as a Christian in my 20s, we chose not to defend the denomination of our heritage. Of course! Instead we defended the Gospel (if indeed it can be defended). We were not into being 'Anglican', we were into Jesus. We believed that the Anglican church was a good place to preach the gospel, but that is as far as the denomination was useful. We talked about the Anglican Church as a 'real estate agent' - an owner of property - and that was it.

The reason, then, that I pursued faith within the Anglican denomination was simple: Absolutely everybody who was significant in my Christian faith was Anglican (or trained as Anglican). I figured that out pretty easily. And almost all of them had trained at an Anglican Seminary in the city in which I grew up. So I put 2 and 2 together: if they could give me Christ, then I could pass Him on.

So off I went to seminary.

Here in the United States, denominations (for better or worse) play a large part in people's lives. The heritage of many here in the US counts for something. Christ Church NYC has formed itself as a church in the "evangelical Anglican tradition." So I have had to think more about being 'Anglican' than ever before. And yet at the same time, we have wanted to (of course) remain dynamic, Spirit-filled, Bible-based, God-entranced, and Christ-focused.

On Monday, I want to begin presenting to you Dr. Paul Barnett's "Ten Elements of Historic Anglicanism". Dr. Barnett was the Anglican Bishop of North Sydney from 1990-2001. Dr. Barnett's Ten Elements were inspired by the comments of J.I. Packer in "Speculating in Anglican Futures" in New Directions (Sept 1995), 6.

I emailed Dr. Barnett and he has agreed to let me post his Ten Elements. Dr Barnett concludes the article thus:

I echo and endorse the sentiment of J.I.Packer that, "Anglicanism embodies the richest, truest, wisest heritage in Christendom."

Strong endorsement, yes?

Would you like to hear Dr Barnett's 10 reasons why being Anglican might be this significant? And my own thought processes along the way?

Yes or No?

_______________________
Pic on Flickr by petecarr.

Anglicanism: One more thing before I start...

Louisa - You said in the comments of the introductory post that you were not sure about the Anglican Church after 5 years of working for an Anglican Church. I hear you. But it is worth saying that Dr. Barnett begins his Ten Elements with this stipulation:

I refer to Anglicanism as defined in the historic formularies: the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles.

That is, we are not discussing each person's particular experience of the Anglican church, but rather, what Dr. Barnett has called "Historic Anglicanism". Hope that helps. Perhaps we are talking about the way the church ought to be, rather than what it often is.

(For my readers: Dr. Barnett may be reading this Blog during the week. So bear that in mind as you make your comments.)

Mike -- hold your horses, mate.

______________________