On Revision of the Prayer Book

The Sunday After Christmas Day

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin: Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

In 2010, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada mandated that the Faith, Worship and Ministry department create a Liturgy Task Force to further review and modify authorized liturgies for the Anglican Church of Canada. Recently, the Task Force released its first Trial Use liturgy for the Daily Offices, and it speaks to a very particular vision of liturgy and liturgical reform that is rooted in a  view that sees the language of, not simply the Prayer Book, but even the Book of Alternative Services as no longer being both ‘faithful and fair’. While the rationale for the proposed daily offices does not particularly define what is meant by faithful and fair, or how the Prayer Book or BAS are not faithful or fair, the notes on the revised Psalter written by the Rev Dr Richard Geoffrey Leggett provides in his words an explanation that the meaning is to provide language that is:

(i) faithful to the intent of the writers of the psalms as poems expressing the relationship between God and the people of Israel and (ii) fair to current users of the psalms who have found the predominately masculine language a barrier to the integration of the psalms into the life of prayer and worship.

In essence, the Liturgy Task Force is saying that language that refers to God as Father creates a barrier to praise of God, as does the use of language such as referring to humanity simply as ‘man’ as has been the case in many Bible translations, and is the case in the text of the Prayer Book, though generally not in the Book of Alternative Services.

While the rationale provides for two other practical reasons for this proposed revision—namely that in the current form you must flip back and forth between pages as you work through the liturgy rather than being able to simply read through it linearly and also that the lectionary and selection of canticles and prayers is limited—it seems that language is the driving force behind this revision, as these more practical concerns could be addressed without any actual change to the liturgy itself, simply through the publication of a revised lectionary for the daily offices or in the case of the former issue, through the use of technology similar to the Church of England’s Daily Prayer app which allows Apple and Android users to have an electronic prayer book which automatically inserts the daily readings into the Matins, Vespers and Compline services and allows the user to linearly read through the entire service.

The Liturgy Task Force has suggested that the language of the BAS, and by extension the Prayer Book, is deficient in either faithfulness or more likely fairness. If this is the primary revision of the text, then it suggests the Task Force views this as the primary hindrance to the use of currently authorized liturgical texts on the Daily Offices. It then seems the appropriate response is a comparison of how the revised proposed Daily Offices read as compared to, for instance, the Offices of the Prayer Book. While in the context of the Psalter faithfulness would be held up against the Psalms of the Bible, in the context of the Daily Offices, the Solemn Declaration states that our faithfulness is to be found in the Anglican Formularies: the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. In this case, then, the Prayer Book should be the standard for faithfulness.

The Daily Offices begin with a penitential rite. In the Prayer Book, it reads as follows for Morning Prayer:

DEARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us in sundry places to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloke them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy.
And although we ought at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we most chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul.
Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart and humble voice unto the throne of the heavenly grace.

In order to be faithful and fair, the revised Daily Office proposes the following substitute: “Let us confess our sins against God and our neighbour.” This is the alternate invitation to confession in the BAS. Can it be said to be fully faithful to the Prayer Book? In the Prayer Book, the invitation to confession reminds us that Scripture commands us to confess in order to obtain forgiveness of those sins by virtue of God’s infinite mercy. The proposed new liturgy provides no rationale for confession. It fails to inform us of God’s infinite mercy and compassion for us. It fails to inform us of that Scriptural mandate to confess our sins.

Some similar problems arise in the confession as well. The confession of the Prayer Book:

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father, We have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, We have offended against thy holy laws, We have left undone those things which we ought to have one, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

Contrast that with the proposed revised confession:

God of all mercy, we confess that we have sinned against you, opposing your will in our lives. We have denied your goodness in each other, in ourselves and in the world you have created. We repent of the evil that enslaves us, the evil we have done and the evil done on our behalf. Forgive, restore and strengthen us through our Saviour Jesus Christ, so that we may abide in your love and serve only your will. Amen.

The Prayer Book begins with poetic imagery: we are lost sheep who have strayed from the Father. It then lists ways in which we sin: following our own desires rather than God’s, offending against God’s laws, failing to do what we ought to and doing what ought not to be doing. In essence this can be further broken down into two parts. The first two list ways in which we offend against the Law which was made obvious in the confession for the BAS which very clearly referenced the summary of the Law: love God and love your neighbour as yourself. The same intent holds here, while the second two points show the ways we make these offences, either by failing to do something we ought to do (passive) or doing what we should not (active).

The confession used in the revised rite follows something of a similar pattern, but again in the quest for ‘fair language’ it has lost its faithfulness. We sin by opposing God’s will in our lives, denying God’s goodness in each other, ourselves and the created world. While the Law, the ten commandments, previously served in the Prayer Book as the ultimate definition of sin, and Christ’s summary of the Law in the BAS, this proposed rite goes further by making its own summary which is just to say opposing God’s will. The problem with such a definition, is that while the Law and Christ’s Summary of the Law are defined in Scripture, God’s will can mean many things. The Law is a part of God’s will, and part of his will which applies to all mankind. Yet at the same time, God’s will is also individual in that he has purposes and designs for every single person. The discernment of God’s will in our lives is a personal responsibility, and by framing sin in terms of God’s will, the Liturgy Task Force has framed sin in terms that are thus discerned individually as well. This is neither faithful—in the sense that it again loses the fullness of the Prayer Book—and neither is it fair in that it lacks clarity. Doubtless the Liturgy Task Force did not include this confession, which is actually from a TEC resource called Enriching our Worship I published in 1998, with the intended desire that these should be the results, but ultimately that is the first concern that must be raised. A similar problem exists with the confession’s definition of how we sin. While the Prayer Book says it involves acts and omissions, the revised rite suggests sin is caused when we deny God’s goodness in each other, ourselves and the world. We can turn to Scripture to define the Law; we cannot turn to Scripture to define God’s goodness in a single place; it is in the fullness of Scripture that God’s goodness is found.

Interestingly enough, this confession lacks the criteria identified by the Liturgy Task Force in terms of language which they sought to change, namely gendered language. This holds true in the confession of the BAS (p. 46). So the question then is why is it even being changed? Whenever a liturgical text is opened up for specific purposes, it can be very tempting to make additional changes, whether they be for reasons of literary preference, theological preference or otherwise.

The Prayer Book remains the standard of our faith and will continue to. The fullness of Anglicanism is found within it, and the ultimate expression of Anglican Doctrine as well. As it says in the Solemn Declaration:

And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in his Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in ‘The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons’; and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.

The Nativity of our Lord, 2014

Christmas Day

O GOD, who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance of the birth of thy only Son Jesus Christ: Grant that as we joyfully receive him as our Redeemer, we may with sure confidence behold him when he shall come again to be our Judge; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

The Nativity of our Lord

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin: Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

In this the love of God was made manifest among us,
that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

1 St John 4. 9

    GLORY be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost;
    As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.

The Holy Gospel is written in the second chapter of the Gospel according to Saint Luke beginning at the first verse.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest,
    and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

On the Use of the Prayer Book

The Fourth Sunday in Advent

RAISE up, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy power, and come among us, and with great might succour us; that whereas, through our sins and wickedness, we are sore let and hindered in running the race that is set before us, thy bountiful grace and mercy may speedily help and deliver us; who with the Father and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen.

Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

For most people familiar with the Prayer Book, they will have used it for the service of Holy Communion which begins on page 67 and runs about twenty pages long. The Prayer Book itself is over 700 pages long, though, so what is contained in the remainder of the Book, and what use is it outside of Sunday services?

The Prayer Book, unsurprisingly, contains some related elements. The section immediately following the service of Holy Communion is titled The Christian Year and contains the collects and readings appointed for every Sunday throughout the Christian calendar and also contains a number of supplementary collects for Holy Days. Following this is the Psalter which contains the Book of Psalms, arranged to be read or sung responsively and ordered for use in the Daily Offices throughout the calendar month. There are sections for private prayers and suitable for family prayer, and finally there are the Daily Offices themselves.

The Daily Offices evolved over the centuries as a practice of regular daily prayer. There are many instructions on prayer in the Bible, perhaps most famously in Lk 11. 2-4 where Jesus gives us the Lord’s Prayer. In other places there are exhortations to pray without ceasing (1 Thes 5. 17) and in all circumstances (Phil 4. 6). Some advice to the early Christians advised a practice of praying the Lord’s Prayer three times a day, once in the morning, once in the evening and once at night. This practice would have been familiar to many of the early Christians as there was a similar Jewish practice of prayer at particular hours. The Psalms were often used during these prayers, in addition to the Lord’s Prayer. There were references to the office of Morning and Evening prayer as early as the second and third centuries, but these would ultimately be expanded by the monastic traditions who added new times for prayer, and particularly to St Benedict of Nursia who strongly encouraged the praying of the Daily Offices for those of the Benedictine orders. Compline, Night Prayer, is also attributed to the creation of St Benedict.

When Archbishop Thomas Cranmer began to assemble the first Book of Common Prayer in the early 16th century, he sought to simplify the offices (of which there were at eight). For many people, it would be impossible to pray many of the daily offices because they were working in the fields. Cranmer simplified these to Matins (Morning Prayer) and Vespers (Evening Prayer, also known as Evensong). In the Canadian Book of Common Prayer, an order for Compline was ultimately separated from Vespers and included as its own liturgy for use later at night than Vespers. Despite its inclusion, and the fact that it is technically a Daily Office, usually when this term is used it still is only meant to refer to Morning and Evening Prayer, which are located at the very start of the Book of Common Prayer.

The Daily Offices may be led by laity or clergy, and as their history shows they often were engaged in by laity as a form of daily devotional prayer. Given their historical origins, they offer a link to the Christian past. They offer a way of praying through the Psalms regularly as well as additional readings. As the services are short, they are simple to, with regular practice, memorize.

Morning Prayer follows a simple format of exhortation to confession and confession and absolution concluding with the Lord’s Prayer, readings and canticles concluding with the Apostle’s Creed, appointed collects and prayers of the people, interspersed with anthems if desired, the prayer of St John Chrysostom and concluded with the Grace. Evening Prayer is even simpler, with a similar penitential introduction, readings and psalms concluding with the Gloria Patri, additional Bible readings with canticles, often nunc dimittis and magnificat, and concluding again with the Apostle’s Creed. A number of prayers and responses are then read or chanted before the liturgy concludes.

Taken together, both offer an opportunity for regular prayer and reading at the start and end of the day, helping to restore a rhythmic prayer life like that of the early Church, while also helping to read regularly through the Bible be it the Psalms or the lessons.

While not a daily office, the Forms of Prayer to be used in Families which begins on Page 728 provides prayers suitable for many common family occasions. There are prayers for the morning and evening, in the event that the full Morning or Evening Prayer cannot be said, grace at meals, prayers for family members and other occasions.

Finally pages 37 – 61 have thematically labelled collects suitable for diverse occasions.

Many Christians find prayer difficult. Spontaneous prayer can be challenging at first; figuring out what to say and how to say it. This is particularly true for some Christians who may fear they are saying things the wrong way or are simply unfamiliar with Christian prayer. There are many diverse and sundry forms of prayer, but the Prayer Book offers a resource that can be a model and guide, starting with the formal offices or even just offering collect prayers for specific circumstances or occasions, on which we can ultimately develop our own prayers.

The language and use of the Prayer Book helps us to build a prayer life with God which is intimate and sound, and helps us to pray God’s will. The prayers it offers are theologically sound, and as we use them it helps to instruct us in how we ought to pray in order to pray God’s will, something which can also be a struggle for the new Christian.

The Prayer Book is a resource that carries with it countless uses outside of a Sunday mass, and it is one with which all Anglicans ought to familiarize themselves.

On the Language of the Prayer Book

The Third Sunday in Advent

O LORD Jesu Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee: Grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries may likewise so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

The language of the Prayer Book is archaic, there is no getting around it. While it is variously described as being more contemplative, solemn or formal than the alternative and modern language services available in the Book of Alternative Services, the reality is merely that the diction is archaic. The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 uses language of the day, but the language is now 350 – 450 years old, and the Canadian Prayer Book of 1962 models its language on that of the 1662 Prayer Book. So while it clearly is archaic, is it solemn, stiff and formal as it is otherwise described, or is it just our unfamiliarity with the way the language is employed that makes it so?

Here is a simple comparison between the language. The collect for Advent above is said each week during advent from the Book of Common Prayer. The collect for Advent from the Book of Alternative Services follows:

Almighty God, give us grace to cast away the works of darkness and put on the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life in which your Son Jesus Christ came to us in great humility, that on the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the living and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

In this example, the prayers have largely been unchanged; the Book of Alternative Services merely updated the language to modern use, for the most part. Some of the more obvious changes beyond mere word order are the change of, “thy Son Jesus Christ,” to, “your Son Jesus Christ, and, “him who liveth and reigneth,” to, “him who lives and reigns.” In the latter example it is simply a matter of it being the proper suffix for a third person singular present tense verb. In modern English, the suffix of –eth has been replaced with –s. In the former example, however, the change is a bit more complex. Thy is similarly an archaic form of your, which is used in the Book of Alternative Services translation, however it ignores one critical point. Thy was also the singular informal form of you. Many languages maintain such a distinction. In French, tu is used as the informal second person singular, and the second person plural vous is used as the second person singular in formal circumstances. This same usage is found in Spanish with tú and usted. In modern English, the form of you is used in both cases, and it is therefore impossible to tell if it is formal or informal, singular or plural, without some form of context. In the archaic form of English used in the Prayer Book, however, this informal use of thy is preserved. Far from being formal, the use of this archaic language, when properly understood, reminds us of the deeply personal relationship we engage in with God through the liturgy. Its use, according to Sue Careless, suggests intimacy, affection and love and reflects a type of speech which would be used with a close friend or beloved, in contrast with you and your which would have been used with someone for with whom the relationship was more formal or distant.

In understanding that context of linguistic use, reading the Prayer Book constantly highlights the intimacy of the personal relationship we hold with God through Jesus Christ. In the modern language of the Book of Alternative Services, there is nothing to suggest that we do not have that personal relationship, but neither are there sufficient context clues to us, for instance in the collect example used, to suggest that intimacy and informality that is expressly stated in the Prayer Book’s language.

Beyond the reminder of informality, by virtue of the archaic language, we set the liturgy apart from our daily lives. Much like how we might dress with intention of worship, our use of language reflects a clear desire to set this time apart for the sacred worship of God. The language of the Prayer Book is poetic and quite beautiful. As has been referenced previously, the Prayer Book and King James Bible are viewed as seminal English literary work and revered as such even by non-Christians merely for their beautiful use of the English language. As anyone knows, when you translate poetry, it does not always translate well; some of the beauty of the Prayer Book is lost in the modernised language of the Book of Alternative Services.

Aside from setting ourselves apart, it is also a reminder of an important truth. As we sing in the hymn Diademata, God is, “ineffably sublime.” He is so great we cannot describe him in words. If we cannot properly describe him in words, how can we even attempt it using simple or common words? The fact that the use of these words is today largely limited to their religious context helps remind us that our normal vocabulary is insufficient. As David Mills argues, we use the language of the Prayer Book to, as best as we are able, express truths beyond words.

The language of the Prayer Book, as this post first recognized, is archaic. It needs to be understood. Ultimately, however, that is no different than any other aspect of the liturgy. The meaning behind the high mass cannot always be understood simply by participating in it, and some effort needs to be made to understand the history and symbolism behind different acts and even words. With the language of the Prayer Book it is little different: we must make an effort to understand the words we say, because behind them stands the doctrinal theological fullness of the Anglican tradition.

The language of the Prayer Book is a precious deposit of the Anglican tradition. In learning the language of the Prayer Book, we become one step closer to unlocking the full potential of the Prayer Book as a tool of faith in the Anglican tradition.

On the History of the Prayer Book

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.

Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

When the Church of England gained its independence from the Bishop of Rome, there was no equivalent to the Prayer Book in use in England. Different books existed for different rites. For instance, the Sarum Rite Missal which provided for the Eucharist, The Breviary provided for the daily offices while The Ritual included rites related to the other sacraments such as baptism, marriage and the funeral rites. The Pontifical was the Bishop’s book which included rites for ordinations.

These were maintained during the reign of Henry VIII who, despite having removed the Pope’s temporal authority over the Church and Realm of England, did not support continental reformers in the Protestant movement. It was not until the reign of his successor, Edward VI, that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer was able to compile the first version of the Book of Common Prayer, which collected the various offices and sacraments together, and provided for them in English. The title Book of Common Prayer can be misleading to some because Common was not meant to refer to it as being ordinary, but rather that it was shared by all. This was in keeping with the restoration of the practices of the early church of holding services in the local vernacular, rather than the later practice which had developed in the Western Roman Church which had required all services to be held in Latin regardless of local vernacular and whether or not the people would understand anything.

Cranmer’s work began in 1547 upon Edward VI’s coronation and the first version of the Book of Common Prayer was completed and authorized for use in 1549. It represented a slightly reformed theology, in keeping with Cranmer’s personal views, and collected the daily offices, readings for Sundays and Holy Days throughout the year, the Holy Communion, baptism, confirmation, holy matrimony, visitation of the sick and burial. An ordinal with rites for the ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons was added in 1550. The entire Prayer Book was only intended to be temporary and was supplanted by a new version in 1552.

The 1552 Prayer Book included several more revisions from the 1549 version, adjusting and removing certain aspects of Roman influence and doctrine. By the time of the 1552 version, it was quite explicit in the Prayer Book that humanity could offer no works to God which would contribute to their salvation, in contrast with Roman doctrines on salvation. Other aspects of Roman practice remained, however. The Sarum Rite was created in the 11th century, and thus it included within the Nicene Creed the filioque. The filioque has been preserved in the Book of Common Prayer since, however several ecumenical statements between the Anglican Communion and Eastern Orthodox Church have stressed that future revisions of Anglican Liturgy would remove the filioque clause.

With the death of Edward VI in 1553, however, the Roman Catholic Queen Mary I took the throne, and the Marian persecutions began as Roman practices were restored. Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake in 1556, however his work survived him as Cranmer’s 1552 Book of Common Prayer was restored in 1559 upon the coronation of Queen Elizabeth I. Over the next hundred years, several more revisions would take place as the English Civil Wars would challenge the religious status quo in England.

At the relative end of this bloody and destructive period, a new Prayer Book was published in 1662. This final version for the Book of Common Prayer, published along-side the Ordinal, represented a final acceptance of the fractured reality of English Christianity. While the previous Prayer Books were essentially used by all Christians in England, by the time the 1662 Prayer Book was published, it was the book used by Anglicans, while nonconformist protestants would develop their own liturgical books and styles. The 1662 Prayer Book represents the first truly Anglican Prayer Book, through it continues to hold to much of the language and theology of Cranmer’s original 1549 version.

The 1662 Prayer Book is viewed, alongside the Ordinal and 39 Articles of Religion, as one of the formularies of Anglicanism, as its doctrine fully reflects the breadth of Anglican doctrine in the way that was desired of the 1552 Prayer Book, which continental German reformer Martin Bucer hoped would make “fully perfect” the doctrines made implicit in the 1549 Book.

In addition to its doctrinal implications, the Book of Common Prayer 1662 is considered a literary classic, having introduced many phrases into the English language. While it was written in the language of the people, Cranmer maintained a particular poetic style that has made the Book of Common Prayer a classic along the lines of Shakespeare and the King James Bible. Such lines include, “speak now or forever hold your peace,” from the sacrament of Holy Matrimony or the even more famous, “ashes to ashes, dust to dust,” from the funeral rite.

As Anglicanism spread throughout the world with the expansion of the British Empire, so did the Book of Common Prayer. The Prayer Book has been locally adapted in many places, sometimes with more or less changes. In Canada, the 1962 Prayer Book minimally updates the language—mainly adjusting spelling to more conventional modern spelling while maintaining the original language and poetry—and rather simply adding some local observances, prayers suitable to local occasions and so forth. Others, such as the American Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer represent a significant break from the 1662 Prayer Book tradition.

While the Book of Common Prayer remains extremely popular, it has been supplanted, both in England and in Canada, by modern alternative service books. Common Worship was introduced in the Church of England in 2000, and contains significantly revised liturgies, far less restrictive rubrics and updated language, while the Anglican Church of Canada had similarly authorized the Book of Alternative Services in 1985 with similar modifications. While these books have become the most commonly used, their strongest proponents do tend at least to view them as being in continuity with the Prayer Book and reflective of the theology and doctrine espoused by Cranmer.

The modern philosopher Roger Scruton, however, takes the approach of a purist, saying that, “To describe the new services as ‘alternatives’ to Cranmer is like describing Eastenders as an ‘alternative’ to Shakespeare, or Lady Gaga as an ‘alternative’ to Bach.” Debates over the effect of language are central to the discussion of the continued relevance of the Prayer Book, and the utility of modernised alternatives such as Common Worship and the Book of Alternative Services.

The Wisdom of Saints: St Nicholas of Myra

The Feast of Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, c. 343

O ALMIGHTY God, who willest to be glorified in thy Saints, and didst raise up thy servant Nicholas to shine as a light in the world: Shine, we pray thee, in our hearts, that we also in our generation may show forth thy praises, who hast called us out of darkness into thy marvellous light; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The season of Advent is also one that is fraught, in the secular world, with images of the secular notion of Christmas: generosity and giving, and for the children, Santa Clause. While there is nothing wrong with promoting these virtues, setting aside the fact that they are in fact not the “reason for the season” or the fact that it is Advent and not Christmas itself, it is Santa Clause that will draw the attention of this month’s entry in the Wisdom of Saints, with a discussion of the life of St Nicholas of Myra, also known as St Nicholas the Wonder-worker, the inspiration for the mythical figure of Santa Clause.

A Christian friend recently discussed his distress at having to decide how to approach the issue of Santa Clause with his firstborn son. Do you say that Santa Clause—and other common children’s fantasies such as the tooth fairy—is real, only to have them realise later that it is not true or do you approach it another way. My suggestion at the time was simple: teach them about St Nicholas.

No direct writing of St Nicholas survives, and the oldest accounts of his life were made several hundred years after his death, so there are many varying accounts and traditions.

St Nicholas was born in 270 in the port city of Patara, bordering the Mediterranean Sea in Asia Minor. His parents were wealthy Christians named Epiphanius and Johanna, and they raised Nicholas to be Christian before dying while Nicholas was still relatively young. He was a pious boy and upon the death of his parents devoted his inherited wealth to charity while he continued to serve the Church. His Uncle, who was Bishop of Patara, tonsured him as a reader and later ordained him as a Presbyter.

One early story of his life in Patara purports that shortly after the death of his parents he learned of a man in the city who had three daughters and no money to support them, or ability to find husbands for them due to the lack of a dowry. He planned to turn his daughters over to prostitution so they could support themselves. Hearing of this, St Nicholas brought a bag of gold and in secret during the night, threw it into the man’s house through an open window. The money was sufficient for the man to find a husband for his eldest daughter. St Nicholas later returned with another bag for the middle daughter and a third time for the youngest.

Around the year 300, St Nicholas travelled to Myra, where it happened that the Bishop of Myra had recently died and other local bishops had gathered to select the next bishop. One of the senior bishops present heard a voice during the night telling him that the first person who entered the church during matins the next morning was to be the next Bishop. The next morning, St Nicholas entered, and after asking his name, the bishop addressed him saying, “Nicholas, servant and friend of God, for your holiness you shall be bishop of this place.”

According St Methodios of Constantinople, writing in the 9th century on the life of St Nicholas, St Nicholas suffered under the Diocletian persecution of the early 4th century:

As he was the chief priest of the Christians of this town and preached the truths of faith with a holy liberty, the divine Nicholas was seized by the magistrates, tortured, then chained and thrown into prison with many other Christians. But when the great and religious Constatine, chosen by God assumed the imperial diadem of the Romans, the prisoners were released from their bonds and with them the illustrious Nicholas, who when he was set at liberty returned to Myra.

After being released from prison he returned to his position as Bishop of Myra, where he spoke out against the Arian controversy, preventing it from taking root within his see. As St Methodios put it, because of his orthodox teachings, the people of Myra rejected Arianism as, “death dealing poison.” St Nicholas attended the First Council of Nicaea in 325 called by Emperor Constantine to address the Arian controversy. He was well-regarded in his time as a tireless advocate against Arianism and against paganism as well.

After his release from prison following the Diocletian persecution, St Nicholas is said to have utterly destroyed the pagan temple to Artemis, the principle pagan deity worshipped in Myra, in Myra. He preached extensively against paganism throughout his days, and orthodox Christian faith.

Another of his most well-known miracles involves the freeing of three innocent men from prison. The local governor had taken a bribe in order to condemn and execute three innocent men, but St Nicholas arrived just in time to stay the hand of their executioner and had them released. Later when the three men were in Constantinople, they were captured by a prefect who again procured warrants for their death from the Emperor Constantine. Awaiting their execution the men prayed for intervention and deliverance, remembering St Nicholas’s intervention previously. That night, St Nicholas appeared to the prefect and to the Emperor in dreams, threatening them and telling them to release the three innocent men. The next morning, Constantine and the prefect conferred and found they had shared the same dream. The three innocent men were questioned and when it was found that had called on God in the name of St Nicholas, who had appeared to Constantine, they were set free and sent to Myra with a letter from Constantine to St Nicholas.

St Nicholas died and was buried in Myra in 343.

Over the centuries, St Nicholas became well-known for both his charity—leaving gold coins in the shoes of his guests—and for performing miracles. Due to one story related to him involving saving children, he became a patron saint for children, and in parts of Europe customs arose involving distributing gifts in his name at Christmas, though this custom did not extend to the English speaking world. It was brought to the Americas by Dutch protestants, where the name Saint Nicholas became corrupted through translation to Santa Clause, and was thus introduced to the English speaking world.

While Santa Clause himself is a fictional character, the spirit of charity represented in gift-giving is thoroughly rooted in the history of St Nicholas the Wonderworker.

On the Prayer Book

The First Sunday in Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

Happy New Year! Advent is not simply a season of preparation for Christmas, but is also the start of the Christian calendar. It is a time of beginnings, where it seems appropriate to focus on the foundations. For Advent, this blog will focus on a multi-part series on the Prayer Book.

Anglicanism, as has been previously noted, finds its formularies in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, 1662 and the Ordinal. In modern times, all of these are published in the Book of Common Prayer, 1962 which is authorized for use in Canada. It contains the essential theology of Anglicanism, adapted to a Canadian context through the inclusion of prayers suitable to Canadian life.

The importance of the Prayer Book, as the Book of Common Prayer is often called, transcends Churchmanship. Evangelical Anglicans tend to come from the Low Churchman wing of the Anglican Communion, but the importance of the Prayer Book transcends Churchmanship. Charles Simeon, one of the leading Evangelicals of his day who left a lasting impact on all Evangelical Anglicans, once preached on the importance of the Prayer Book in 1811, saying:

I consider it as one of the highest excellencies of our Liturgy, that it is calculated to make us wise, intelligent, and sober Christians: it marks a golden mean ; it affects and inspires a meek, humble, modest, sober piety, equally remote from the coldness of a formalist, the self-importance of a systematic dogmatist, and the unhallowed fervour of a wild enthusiast. A tender seriousness, a meek devotion and a humble joy are the qualities which it was intended, and is calculated, to produce in all her members.

This traditional high view of the Prayer Book is upheld today in the various Prayer Book Societies from around the Anglican Communion, but is no longer universally held by all Anglicans. In the 1970s, the Anglican Church of Canada sought to update the Prayer Book to make it more relevant. While some of the changes—such as the inclusion of the Revised Common Lectionary which is shared with the Roman Catholics and others—were not innovations, in some cases, the linguistic changes and loosening of the rubrics (instructions) has limited the transmission of the theology contained in the Prayer Book to the Book of Alternative Services.

Today, most Canadian Anglicans who are not older cradle Anglicans are probably more familiar with the more contemporary language of the BAS. The archaic language of the Prayer Book can present a stumbling block to those Anglicans whose English is limited, though this argument seems a bit silly when the language can require a bit of instruction even for native English speakers. The flexibility of the Book of Alternative Services ensures that linguistic challenges can be overcome. This concept, however, is merely another reminder of the fact that the Church in modern times has approached challenges of theology not by catechizing but by changing the theology to be more palatable, much like how the Church commonly seeks to be “culturally relevant” through changing its theology.

The language can be a challenge, but if approached with an open heart and mind, it can lead to a far deeper understanding. When reading from the Book of Alternative Services, for example, there may be no need to understand the language, however this may lead to a more rote recitation or memorization of the words without effort spent to understand their true meaning. It is one thing to be able to understand what each individual word in a sentence means, but it can sometimes take effort to explore and understand what they mean when they are combined. Especially when dealing with complex theological issues that are expressed in the liturgy.

The difference in approach can very readily be seen in the introduction and prefaces to the respective books. In the Book of Alternative Services, its purpose is highlighted in the Introduction by quoting the resolutions of General Synod which led to the creation of the Book of Alternative Services nearly fifteen years later:

that in future revisions of our Common Prayer Book, more emphasis be given to permissive forms and less to mandatory forms of public worship, in order that in the use of one common book, we may still achieve that flexibility and variety we deem desirable. And that in the meantime General Synod be asked to give guidance to diocesan authorities in relaxing the rigid conformist notes still written into our Common Prayer Book.

The purpose of the BAS therefore was to promote diversity of liturgy and use. In contrast, the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer presents a more focused purpose:

THE Book of Common Prayer is a priceless possession of our Church. By its intrinsic merits, as a book designed for the reverent and seemly worship of Almighty God, it has endeared itself to generation after generation of devout Christians throughout the world. None would desire or advocate any change therein which would impair or lessen this deep-seated affection… this Book of Common Prayer is offered to the Church, with the hope that those who use it may become more truly what they already are: the People of God, that New Creation in Christ which finds its joy in adoration of the Creator and Redeemer of all.

Over the next three weeks, we will explore the history of the Prayer Book, the language of its theology, and its use outside of Sunday in our daily lives.

The Wisdom of Saints: St Clement of Rome

The Feast of Clement, Apostolic man, Bishop of Rome, c. 100

O GOD, our heavenly Father, who didst raise up thy faithful servant Clement to be a Bishop in thy Church and to feed thy flock: We beseech thee to send down upon all thy Bishops, the Pastors of thy Church, the abundant gift of thy Holy Spirit, that they, being endued with power from on high, and ever walking in the footsteps of thy holy Apostles, may minister before thee in thy household as true servants of Christ and stewards of thy divine mysteries; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

St Clement of Rome was the Bishop of Rome in the late Apostolic Age. Surprisingly few details of his life are known, especially given how popular a figure St Clement became during the first few centuries of the post-Apostolic Age. In various chronologies of the Church he is noted to have been installed as Bishop for the majority of the AD 90s, and was martyred around AD 100. He is believed to have been martyred by being tied to an anchor and thrown into the sea to be drowned.

St Clement is chiefly remembered due to the popularity of his Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, known chiefly as I Clement. It is largely dated to AD 96, prior to the end of the Apostolic Age, though some more recent scholarship has dated it to AD 70. The famous Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his seminal Historia Ecclesiae described I Clement as, “one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement, great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.” (iii. 16) The Epistle was sufficiently popular to be often read in churches, and was viewed as truly articulating the faith of the Apostles, to the point of being viewed as canonical by some early Christians. While it had its proponents for inclusion into the Canon, ultimately the main reason it was not adopted into the Canon of Scripture is that St Clement was writing in his own name, rather than in the name of one of the Apostles themselves.

I Clement itself, much like the Pauline Epistles, is a letter written to another Christian community to address controversies that have arisen there. In this case, it is a letter to the Church in Corinth, which had been beset by division, which had resulted in one of the dissident groups of Christians removing the Christian Corinthian leaders from their offices. As St Clement puts describes it, he wrote his Epistle in response to the divisions in the church in, “which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled.” (I Clement 1. 1)

While a good portion of the letter is dedicated to dissecting the schism in the Church in Corinth and exploring how it was sin such as vanity and conceit which led to the schism, and how emulation of Christ's love for one another would be necessary to restore unity to the Church, St Clement addresses afterwards a number of other issues, demonstrating the Patristic understanding of a number of issues which were supported by the writings of the Apostles, even though the full canon of Scripture had not yet been received by the Church when I Clement was written.

Of particular note, in Chapter 32, St Clement addresses justification, saying:

And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (I Clement 32. 4)

In this he expresses a doctrine which would be abandoned among large numbers of Christians until the time of the Reformations in the 16th century. Several weeks ago, this blog discussed the goal of the English Reformation as a desire to restore the Catholic Church in the Realm of England to the faith, order and tradition of the Patristic Church under the authority of Holy Scripture. Article XI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion articulates justification by faith in much the same terms, "we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings..."

Chapters 40 through 44 discuss the issue of the three-fold order of ministry in the Church, and also directly addresses issues such as Apostolic Succession. Chapter 42 in particular discusses how the Apostles were called to be teachers, and how from them were brought forth the orders of ministry:

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith. (I Clement 42. 1-5)

Then, in Chapter 44, St Clement rather specifically address Apostolic Succession when he notes that the Apostles foresaw the possible strife the office of Bishop would create, and made preparations. According to St Clement, Apostolic Succession was envisioned to maintain good order in the Church:

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. (I Clement 44. 1-2)

Along with his specific exhortations to return to unity in love of Christ, St Clements’s writings highlight several fundamental and practical doctrines of the Church which made them extremely popular among early Christians. It is not hard to see how his wisdom, which rightly articulated the doctrines and teachings of the Apostles, was viewed so highly among early Christians that some of the fathers accounted I Clement among the Canon of Scripture.

On Cultural Relevance

The Feast of the Reign of Christ

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, whose will it is to restore all things in thy well-beloved Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords: Mercifully grant that the peoples of the earth, divided and enslaved by sin, may be freed and brought together under his most gracious rule; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

The Sunday Next before Advent

STIR Up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

On this last Sunday of the Christian Calendar, also known as the Feast of Christ the King and the Reign of Christ under the more recent revised Calendar, there is a reflection on some of the previous topics discussed this year.

A number of different topics have been discussed related particularly the subject of worship: what it means, how we pursue it on a Sunday, the way things like prayer and liturgy contribute--or indeed detract--from worship of God. Related to many of these is a question of doctrine, which was discussed primarily in the discussion of the Anglican maxim of lex orandi, lex credendi. What we pray reflects and informs what we believe as doctrines of faith, and therefore what we believe informs the ways in which we pray as much as what we pray.

In the West, the Church, whether it be Anglican or any other tradition, is in decline. Of great concern to many Christians is the way in which this overall trend can be reversed. Cynically, this leads to a view that places a great importance on filling pews and not on the transforming grace God offers us. In these situations, it is easy to see how doctrine can be sacrificed. Decline in Church attendance is ascribed to Christianity no longer being relevant to modern Western culture.

In this view, scientific advances of Western society, changing morality and social mores and generally a broader resistance to (real or perceived) antiquated, superstitious and discriminatory religious views, must be addressed by substantive revision of doctrines in order to return Christianity to the cultural mainstream, and thus again be relevant.

How much further from the truth could we be? JB Phillips, in his book Your God is Too Small, once noted that, “we can never have too big a conception of God, and the more scientific knowledge (in whatever field) advances, the greater becomes our idea of His vast and complicated wisdom.”

To quote the Anglican formularies, the ordinal describes the purpose of the priesthood as those called:

to be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord; to teach, and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord's family; to seek for Christ's sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever.

As the Ven. Fr. Michal McKinnon paraphrases it, “the charge of the Church is to seek the lost who are in the midst of the world that they may be saved, not by us, but through us by Christ.” How much does this contrast with broad churchmen who argue that the Church ought to conform to society in order to bring people in?

The danger here is in false doctrine. We risk an approach which sees the application of the cultural context in which Holy Scripture was written and our own cultural context being applied to its interpretation in which which seeks to shape God in the image and likeness of God, rather than allowing it to be used as a tool to bring God's transforming grace to man in a way that allows us to become closer to the true image and likeness of God we were meant to be.

Does the Church maintain its relevance by changing the Church internally in order to meet people where they are, or does the Church meet people where they are by literally going out into the world to meet them and bring them into the Church?

It is St Paul in his epistle to the Romans who exhorts us to, “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect,” (Rm 12. 2).

As St Teresa of Avila reminds us, the Church is Christ’s agent on earth:

Christ has no body on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours. Yours are the eyes through which Christ’s compassion is to look out; yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good; and yours are the hands with which He is to bless us now.

Being relevant requires many things, but it never requires us to change Church doctrines to conform to modern sensibilities. It requires the Church to truly teach the Gospel, wholly and completely, and then to practice it. It requires the Church to step outside of the walls of its physical buildings, to meet people where they are and respond to their needs in the way that Jesus not only preached the Father’s will, but worked it.

On Lectio Divina

The Twenty-Second Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy household the Church in continual godliness; that through thy protection it may be free from all adversities, and devoutly given to serve thee in good works, to the glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This post is an excerpt of a talk given on lectio divina at a Parish Retreat held the weekend of the 14th and 15th of November 2014.

We began today with an historic request. Christ’s disciples, as recorded in the gospel of St Luke, ask Him, “Lord, teach us to pray.” We engaged in a meditation on the nature of Christ’s response to their request, and since then we have explored teachings and witnesses on private and corporate prayer life. Prayer has been described as a gemstone with many facets. In becoming familiar with them all, we can help to prevent our prayer life from losing depth or becoming a boring monotone. More simply, our goal has always been to show how we can each, simply, enhance our prayer lives and relationships with God through an active and spirited life of prayer which St Teresa of Avila once said was, “nothing else… than being on terms of friendship with God.”

For most of us, our prayer life likely began through the recitation of memorized prayers like the Lord’s Prayer. Over time, we begin introducing more personal elements to our prayers, moving off script. This is the beginning of the transformation of our relationship from one that is impersonal and is about sending messages to God to a more personal relationship with God in which our prayers are conversations between good friends.

Conversation requires not just speaking, but listening as well.  The same holds true in prayerful conversation with God: there must be time for God to speak, and we need to listen when He does. It isn’t wrong to simply bring our petitions to God, in fact we are instructed to do so (Phil 4. 6). It is a start. But to develop a true and deep relationship with God, we need to leave times of silence for God to speak, and train ourselves to listen. In his book The Screwtape Letters, CS Lewis presents an imagined demon giving instruction to a pupil on ways to corrupt the souls of a human. In one of his letters, the demon Screwtape notes that the world is, “occupied by Noise...the grand dynamism, the audible expression of all that is exultant, ruthless, and virile…We will make the whole universe a noise in the end…The melodies and silences of Heaven will be shouted down in the end.”

In the early church, listening to God was considered to be an extremely important and natural part of our spiritual lives. Our spiritual activity in relation to God was a rhythm, a gentle oscillation, between activity towards God and receptivity from God. The activity was pray to God, while receptivity was prayer through listening to God.

While there were many different ways early Christians would make themselves receptive to God, one that received something of a revival and remains extremely commonplace today is lectio divina. It was strongly encouraged in the medieval monastic traditions, and particularly in the Rule of St Benedict from the early 6th century, where the very first sentence of the prologue instructs the reader to, “incline the ear of thy heart,” in order to hear, “thy loving Father.” Michael Casey, a Cistercian monk who has written extensively on the subject, describes it as, “more than the pious perusal of ‘spiritual books.’ Lectio divina is a technique of prayer and a guide to living. It is a means of descending to the level of the heart and finding God.”

Lectio divina is Latin for ‘divine reading’ but it might more easily be understood, at least initially, as ‘divine listening’ because it is a practice which helps us to hear God. Lectio divina is a personal prayer, though it can also be practiced corporately, in which we read Scripture not to see what God has revealed to Christians through the ages, but to listen to His will for us personally in the moment.

While there can be infinite variations in the practice of lectio divina, there are almost always a few common features that unite those practices.

Before beginning, a verse of Scripture is selected as the focus of the lectio divina. The verse itself shouldn’t be too long, as it is easier to contemplate a briefer verse without having to constantly re-read the passage from your Bible. The actual meaning of the passage is not entirely relevant. Remember, lectio divina is not about coming to a deeper understanding of the meaning of a passage, but rather allowing God to speak to you through it. Having selected a passage, there are four main steps to be followed.

Lectio is the first step, reading. The selected passage must be read slowly, attentively and reverently, and through the reading we begin to listen for the, “still small voice,” (1 Kgs 19. 12) of God as he may highlight a particular word or passage within the verses being read. When reading, pause after each clause. In some practices, during certain stages of the reading you may even re-read a particular part of a passage multiple times, or even pause after every single word.

Meditatio is the second step, meditation. Following the annunciation of Christ to St Mary, St Luke records that she pondered what had been revealed to her in her heart (Lk 2. 19). Once we have heard the word or phrase God is speaking to us, we must do the same. Allow it to sit in our head and interact with our thoughts, our worries and the longings of our hearts.

Oratio is the third step, prayer. As St Ambrose of Milan put it, “And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for “we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying.” While lectio divina as a whole is a form of prayer, this is a stage of particular prayer within the process. In the meditatio we personalize God’s word for us. In the oratio we pray a prayer of consecration, offering back what we have meditated upon to God with a grateful heart. This can be done wholly through intent, or if it is easier it can be done through words, spoken or unspoken. God knows the desires of our hearts, but it can be easier as a method of focusing to use words.

Contemplatio, or contemplation, is the final step in lectio divina. It is the point in which, in silence of thought and mind, we can contemplate the loving presence of God. It is a receptive stage in the rhythm of prayer that follows through the receptivity in lectio and activity in the oratio. Through lectio divina, God has invited us into His transforming embrace, revealing to us His will for us. Having had that confirmation of God’s love for us, contemplatio allows us to rest in that love. In this act we achieve closeness with God that cannot be matched purely by conversation. An example might be how at certain points in very close relationships, words are not necessary and two people can simply enjoy and communicate through their presence together. As St Pio of Pietrelcina puts it, prayer, “is the key to God’s heart. You must speak to Jesus not only with your lips, but with your heart. In fact on certain occasions you should only speak to Him with your heart.”

There are many different practical ways to engage in lectio divina, but each of these four stages will be present in some manner. It should be noted, however, that they themselves do not represent a linear progression through lectio divina as there will often be repetition of the reading, meditating and prayer stages throughout the process, and in particular when engaged in a group setting, the contemplation stage may be very brief, or may be engaged in privately at a separate time as a conclusion to the lectio divina. What is critical, however, is that each stage is incorporated into the structure of the prayer. Through them, the rhythm of prayer life in the early church is restored. This rhythm of the early church is also best supported through regular practice. Abbot John Chapman of Downside once said, “The only way to pray is to pray; and the only way to pray well is to pray much. If one has no time for this then they must at least pray regularly.” So it is with lectio divina.

On Remembrance

The Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Remembrance Sunday

ALMIGHTY Lord and everlasting Father, who wouldest have the kingdoms of the world become the kingdom of thy Son Jesus Christ: Bestow thy blessing, we beseech thee, upon all who labour for peace and righteousness among the nations, that the day may be hastened when war shall be no more, and thou shalt take the nations for thine inheritance; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For those who serve in the Queen's Forces

O LORD of hosts, stretch forth, we pray thee, thine almighty arm to strengthen and protect the Queen’s forces in every peril of sea, and land, and air; shelter them in the day of battle, and ever keep them safe from all evil; endue them with loyalty and courage; and grant that in all things they may serve as seeing thee who art invisible; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Today is Remembrance Sunday. A day coming shortly after All Souls day in which we seek to commemorate those who died specifically in the service of their country. Remembrance Sunday is an Anglican practice which emerged following the First World War in which the world was exposed to the horrors of modern total war with millions of young men dying on the muddy battlefields of Europe. It has since taken on special significance as a more general memorial to all those soldiers who have died in the service to their country in all wars and peace operations.

Since the beginning of the Canadian participation in the war in Afghanistan, Remembrance Sunday has taken on special significance as, for the first time in a generation, the true risks of combat operations were brought home and Remembrance Sunday was no longer simply a time to honour the dwindling numbers of the Great Generation who fought in the Second World War, but rather a time to mourn losses being incurred on those sandy battlefields and to pray for the safety of those still fighting there.

While combat operations have since ceased in Afghanistan, the Canadian military remains active abroad, confronting the threat of Russian incursions in Ukraine and the threat of the Islamic State in Iraq. We live in a dangerous world, and the reality is that Canada, as one of the best-trained modern militaries in the world, will often be looked to for support in conflict zones around the globe.

In the wake of the murders of WO Patrice Vincent of Cpl Nathan Cirillo, this year’s Remembrance Day campaigns have taken on an even greater significance for many for whom it is also a cathartic expression of their grief and incomprehension at the violence during the shooting at Parliament Hill.

As we gather before the Lord for Remembrance Sunday, the words of the Act of Remembrance are given new meaning that is not found when it is used in a secular context. “Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.” In particular, we are reminded of St Paul’s words to the Corinthians:

I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
    O death, where is your sting?”
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labour is not in vain. (1 Cor 15. 50-58)

Through the Act of Remembrance, we bring the sacrifices of soldiers to God, much in the same way the Collect for the Sovereign is meant to bring the power structures of the civil authority before God during the Eucharist. It reminds us that, though they have fallen, their death is merely the death of the flesh, and their victory over death has been assured in Christ Jesus.

In these ways, Remembrance Sunday is a unique moment for Anglicans to reflect upon those in civil authority who act on our behalf. Yet, at the same time, it is nothing new.

Each week in the Prayers of the People, biddings and intercessions are offered. There are five categories of biddings: the universal church, those in civil authority, the faithfulness of clergy and people, for those in adversity or suffering and for the dearly departed.

In praying for the universal church, we primarily concern ourselves with unity and right-doctrine; that all Christians would fulfil Christ’s prayer for peace and unity, particularly among Christians.

In praying for those in positions of civil authority, we recall the fact the fact that the government has a significant impact on our lives; it decides both where and when soldiers are to be deployed; how laws will be administrated; conditions in prisons and penitentiaries and importantly numerous laws of a moral dimension.

Clergy receive prayers for the faithful administration of their duties as teachers of the faith and administrants of the sacraments. They hold the all important charism of teaching authority, and so we pray for their faithful interpretation of God’s word and their teaching of it.

As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us, “Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body.” (Heb 13. 3) In some translations, mistreated is translated simply as adversity. Recall those suffering persecution, sickness, and all other forms of adversity.

Lastly we pray for the faithful departed and those who grieve. We pray both for those who continue to live, for their comfort, and also for the departed, praying for their glory in faith.

It is clear how many of these hold a slightly more limited, but still familiar, context on Remembrance Sunday. We pray for the Government and all governments, that there would be peace among the nations and an end to the need for military forces to be deployed abroad. We pray that in zones of active conflict there would be resolution. We pray for those forces that combat injustice and persecution in the world. We in particular recall those who served and who returned home with wounds, visible and invisible, and pray for their healing and well-being. Finally, we recall St Paul’s words on the victory of Christ in death as a we remember those who have fallen in wars, and we

This year, Remembrance Day has taken on a visceral and personal meaning for many. It was already highlighted in the minds of many, being the centenary of the start of the First World War, and the attacks on Canadian Armed Forces personnel here in Canada, the shooting in Ottawa in particular being an event that captured the attention of the nation as the attack was reported over the course of several hours. We have been reminded of the dangerous responsibilities soldiers take upon themselves, on our behalf, when they take up their uniforms. Remembrance Sunday reminds us that we are not merely to remember them, but to pray for them as well, fulfilling  St Paul’s instructions to the Philippians to, “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” (Phil 4. 6)

Simply put: it is not enough simply that we will remember them; we will remember and pray for them.

On Via Media

The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

O ALMIGHTY and most merciful God, of thy bountiful goodness keep us, we beseech thee, from all things that may hurt us; that we, being ready both in body and soul, may cheerfully accomplish those things that thou wouldest have done; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Feast of All Saints in the Octave

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Commemoration of the Faithful Departed

MOST merciful Father, who hast been pleased to take unto thyself our brethren departed: Grant to us who are still in our pilgrimage, and who walk as yet by faith, that having served thee faithfully in this world, we may, with all faithful Christian souls, be joined hereafter to the company of thy blessed Saints in glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end. Amen.

Last week’s blog concluded with a brief discussion of the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion after discussing the nature of the term Catholic, as used in the Nicene Creed. This week seeks to explore further that concept while discussing the Anglican concept of via media.

Via media, is a Latin phrase which means, “the middle way,” and is a term that is commonly applied to Anglicanism. Like many things about Anglicanism, there is not one universally accepted definition to how the term applies to Anglicanism. The Oxford Movement made an effort to define it as a compromise position, reflected in the Elizabethan Settlement, between the extremes of Roman Catholicism  on one side and the Puritans and other extremist reformers on the other. In particular, in Tracts 38 and 41 of Tracts for the Times, John Henry Newman attributed this concept the Richard Hooker in his Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie.

While Newman was not the first to attribute this concept to Hooker, he did again popularize it in the modern context, despite the fact that Hooker himself never used the term. There is, however, is a problem with viewing via media through the lens of compromise. When the Church is dealing with doctrine, it is dealing with God’s truth; not merely some form of public policy like the Elizabethan Settlement where there is no absolute truth and compromise can help to serve the peace.

A more accurate description of via media sees it not as a policy of compromise, but as a description of the results of the English Reformation being directed by a policy of restoring the Catholic Church in the realm of England to the faith, order and practice of the patristic Catholic Church, under the authority of Holy Scripture. In doing so, the Church of England had to avoid the excessive deletions of the reformers, while seeking to themselves remove the superstitious additions of the medieval Roman Catholic Church. That is not to suggest that there were not elements of compromise involved—particularly in terms of language—but it should never be confused with the actual goal of the English Reformation.

Put another way, via media doesn’t describe the policy of the English Reformation, it was not a compromise between the extremes; but rather the result of the policy of the English Reformation, its policy created a specific course which ultimately led it between the two extremes. This policy can be seen quite clearly in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

St Paul tells the Romans in Rom 1. 16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” This forms the Scriptural basis for the principle of Prima Scriptura and sufficiency of Scripture for salvation which was expounded in the Article VI for Anglicanism, and which was held to be true by the patristic Catholic Church. According to St Cyril of Jerusalem:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

This doctrine was held to be untrue by the Roman Catholics, dogmatically defined in the Council of Trent in response to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. In modern times, the papal document Dei Verbum defines the equality of authority for Tradition and Scripture when it says, in Article 9, “both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” This understanding clearly contradicts the primacy of Scripture understood by the fathers. Indeed, as was discussed last week, the authority and primacy of Scripture as God’s word was one of the defining characteristics of the Catholic Church. It was therefore held as essential to re-establish it in the Anglican practice.

As a whole, the Articles spell out in several places, a desire to maintain the characteristic four values of the patristic Catholic Church. Articles VI  and VII provide for the primacy of Scripture exactly as articulated by St Cyril, and then notes the full Canon of Scripture and the application of the Old and New Testaments. Article VIII affirms the value of the Creeds as an articulation of faith, while again confirming that they remain subject to Scripture by noting that everything expressed in the Creeds is in accordance with Scripture. Articles XXV, XXVII, XXVIII and XXX speak to the sacramental life of the Church, affirming Baptism and the Supper of the Lord effectual sacraments of the Gospel, commanded by Christ and administered in accordance with his words of institution. Articles XXIII and XXXVI speak to the one order of ministry of deacons, priests and bishops to administer the Church. These were the distinctives of the patristic Catholic Church!

This desire to return to a patristic understanding of Christianity ensured that the Church of England would reject some of the extreme deletions of the Protestants. For instance, some denominations rejected the validity of the Sacraments, suggesting that the Supper of the Lord was nothing more than a memorial, and rejecting the Real Presence. Whereas Article XXII of the Articles of Religion condemned Roman Catholic excesses, Article XXV condemned the Protestant view that the sacraments were mere pageantry. In the same manner, Article XXIII rejected the Protestant doctrine of the universal priesthood, noting that there remained an ordained priesthood of those called and commissioned by God, given the charism of teaching authority.

The Articles of Religion fairly clearly articulate a policy of seeking to navigate the excesses of religion that were occurring in the era, using language meant to sooth extremists on both sides, while directing a course towards a return to the understanding and practice of the fathers.

This understanding of via media is essential in avoiding criticisms of Anglican via media as an appeal to moderation, a logical fallacy which says that a compromise between extremes is always correct. Via media should not be viewed as a compromise, nor should the Anglican Church, for instance, be viewed as a compromise between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. When the term via media is used, rather than seeing it as meaning the compromise or middle road, it should  be viewed for what it was: the patristic road.

On Catholicism

The Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee: Mercifully grant, that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Feast of Dedication

O MOST blessed Saviour, who didst vouchsafe thy gracious presence at the Feast of Dedication: Be present with us at this time by thy Holy Spirit, and so possess our souls by thy grace, that we may be living temples, holy and acceptable unto thee; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

Every Sunday, when we read the words of the Nicene Creed we proclaim, “And I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” What exactly does the term Catholic mean there? It’s used in other contexts; does it always mean the same thing? In what sense is the Anglican Church Catholic? There are many meanings to the term, and it’s used differently by different fellowships and denominations of Christians in different contexts.

In modern times, you will often find the term ‘catholic’ used in the creed instead of ‘Catholic,’ and sometimes you’ll even see substituted for it the word universal, or the word universal added in parentheses afterwards. The meaning behind this is simple: catholic means the universal fellowship of all those who hold an orthodox profession of faith in Christ. All that is required is to believe that Christ is the only begotten son of God, that he was incarnate and died for our sins on the cross, and that through faith in Him, we can be saved. There is a truth to this use of the term, but at the same time it does not capture the fullness of the term Catholic. Catholic is more discrete than catholic. What’s more, the rise of the use of the term universal is in large part a result of the rise in the term Catholic in its second context.

One of the most common uses of the term Catholic is when it is used interchangeably with the term Roman Catholic. The term refers to one specific fellowship and tradition, that of the Roman Catholic Church, which has and continues to claim to be the Catholic Church. The problem is that the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church exclusively, and the Anglican Communion and others claim to be a part of the Catholic Church. Because of the predominance of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide and its cultural influence, particularly in the Anglosphere when we’re discussing the context of the English language term ‘Catholic’ there is often an assumption, particularly by Protestants who may otherwise not be familiar with the terminology, that any reference to Catholic is a reference to the Roman Catholic. That is not the case, however.

The connection between Catholic, meaning Roman Catholic, and catholic is in an effort to reassure congregants that when they are professing belief in the catholic (universal) Church, they are not claiming to be a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Among Anglicans, this concern tends to stem from the historic antipathy between Anglicans and Roman Catholics in England during and subsequent to the English Reformation. While in modern times, most of this antipathy has disappeared, some historical mistrust remains, and for different reasons similar antipathy exists in different places between Roman Catholics and Protestants of different denominations. Setting aside the motivations behind a desire not to be confused with being Roman Catholic, the more important failure of this practice is to again conflate the terms Catholic and Roman Catholic, which do have separate meanings.

Related to the term Catholic being used to mean Roman Catholic, there is another somewhat decidedly Anglican use of the term. Some High Churchman and ritualists will refer to themselves as Catholic, in some manner or another, meaning it to refer to their preference towards Roman Catholic style ritualism, without reference to theology. In this, there might be Anglicans who refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholics or Anglican Catholics, or Catholic Anglicans, but who do not support the theology of the Oxford Movement, which is the more defining characteristic of Anglo-Catholicism. Another variation might be the term Liberal Catholics, who again primarily consist of Liberal Christians who term themselves Catholic due to their use of Roman Catholic rituals in their High Churchmanship. While this form of labelling, in reference to practice over theology, can be valid due to its long-term understanding, it still does not appreciate the fullness of the term. You can have a Liberal Catholic Anglican, but that is a representation of a person’s theology and Churchmanship, and doesn’t speak to the Catholic Church at all.

So what is the Catholic Church?

In its fullest sense, when the Nicene Creed says Catholic Church, it is in reference to the once undivided Catholic Church of the first Christian millennium, which encompassed all orthodox Christians from the Apostolic Age up to roughly the Great Schism of 1054. During this period, there were many controversies and in certain senses, the Church was never truly undivided, but what is referenced here is the unity that was found throughout the Christian world. You could enter into any Christian church or house of worship certain that you would be both welcome and it would be familiar to you in terms of the sacramental life, the faith and practice, and its reverence for Holy Scripture. This is the Catholic Church directly referenced by the Nicene Creed.

In modern times, there are successors to the Catholic Church that remain a part of it. No communion precisely holds to the exact same principles and practices of the early Catholic Church, but so long as they hold true to the four principles of unity, they maintain a claim to Catholicity. As the Ven. Fr. Michael McKinnon puts it:

Those communions or fellowships of the once undivided Catholic church who have maintained the one canon of Scripture, the one faith, articulated in the creeds and councils of the Church, the one Sacramental life, emphasizing the sacraments of Baptism, and being born to new life, and the Supper of the Lord, and being nourished in new life, and the one apostolic ministry, with the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons, and which taken together comprise the once undivided Catholic Church.

Now, while there are some Anglicans who use the term Catholic in reference to Roman Catholic practice, there are many more who, when they claim to be some form of Catholic Anglican or Anglo-Catholic, mean as much in reference to this understanding of Anglicans as a fellowship in succession to the Catholic Church, and which continues to uphold the four principles which defined the Catholic Church.

During the English Reformation, many viewed the separation from Roman jurisdiction in the 1530s as an opportunity to split doctrinally with Rome not in favour of the continental Reformation, but in an effort to restore the purity of Christianity through the faith of the Catholic Church by removing certain Roman superstitious additions to the faith, introduced during the medieval period. Lancelot Andrewes, a Bishop of the Church of England in the early 17th century and considered one of the brightest Anglican scholars of his day famously wrote that, “One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.”

More recently, Archbishop Jeffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1945 to 1961, said, “The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.” Article XIX, when unpacked, further affirms this view of the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion, speaking of faithful preaching of Scripture, the faith of which is articulated in the creeds, and administration of the sacraments, through the historic episcopate. All sources confirm a view of the Anglican Communion as being Catholic.

When the reciting the Nicene Creed, Anglicans do not profess merely to be part of the body of all Christian believers, nor does it speak of some kind of Roman Catholic heritage; in professing Catholicity, we hold to the Christian faith practiced by the early Catholic Church.

On Modesty

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

When you invite a guest to come to Church with you, either because you’re hoping to encourage them to come to Christ or because you've invited them to a special occasion such as a Baptism or other event, the response might often look something like, “Sure, I’ll come. What should I wear?”

Outside of controversies surrounding doctrine, there have probably been more words written on the subject of what men and women should wear to church than on any other issue that could be characterised, under last week’s post, as a non-essential. Indeed, it is so important that it was covered in the Book of Homilies in a homily entitled Against Excess of Apparel.

In modern society, what we wear seems to be held as important. It makes a statement about us, to the point where studies have shown that it can have a significant impact on our lives, with workers of equal competency who dress less fashionably being less likely to receive a promotion than their more fashionable, but no more qualified, colleagues.

This reality proclaims the fact that what we wear is a statement, whether or not we intend to make one, and it’s a statement both at work and at church. With respect to what we wear at church, there seems to be a two-fold modern narrative. The first narrative is that we ought to be comfortable, and second is that we, and particularly women, ought to be modest.

Church is not a stuffy, formal place, but rather a place where we meet Christ in person! He’s our pal, so dress comfortably and sit back and relax in the presence of “bro Jesus.” A casual t-shirt or perhaps an untucked button-down shirt paired with jeans or shorts, depending on the weather, are the order of the day. Expectations are much the same for women with the addition of skirts and dresses as well. This seems to be something borne out of the sixties and seventies when Church began to try and address declining attendance by attempting to adapt to popular culture. No need to wear a shirt and tie, come and listen to our top 40 Christian Folk music! No need for your Sunday best, come just as you are and don’t be put out.

The idea of dressing comfortably, then, is one which reflects a desire to not inconvenience someone from attending by the implication that meeting Jesus may move them away from their personal comfort zone or in some way involves transformation in their lives. It doesn't really speak at all to the question of what we say when this becomes the rule of dress for church.

The second aspect of the modern narrative is one of modesty, particularly when applied to women and girls, as opposed to men. Looking back, this would have been made explicit through definition of collars not lower than two inches below the neckline, and skirts that extend below the knee, to take the example from the Roman Catholic Church’s guidelines in the 1950s. In modern times, there is an interesting tension between the idea that people should be comfortable and yet should still display modesty, even though the term is no longer defined in such stringent and observable terms.

There is, it must be said, some merit to the push for modesty, but generally speaking its merit is not in any way related to the reasons modesty has become a part of our modern narrative on dress in church. Usually modesty is promoted because of claims that immodest dress on the part of girls and women is a form of sexual temptation for men and boys who, it is assumed, cannot control themselves.

There are two problems with this. First off, it suggests that, even with the grace and support of God, a Christian man cannot conquer temptation. This is, to use a technical Greek term, hogwash. St Paul tells us in Rom 6. 14 that , “sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” By blaming the dress of others, we are in fact ignoring our own unrighteousness and trying to call out the possible sins of others to distract ourselves from our own falling short. This leads to the second problem. Earlier in his letter to the Romans, St Paul had just warned them against such hypocrisy, to the point where he asked in Rom 2. 3, “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgement of God?” This is a dangerous form of hypocrisy because it seeks to ignore our own sin by highlighting the perceived sins of others through judgement of them. We have no right to judge, nor does our judging them in any way affect our own sins.

All of this ties up with the false narrative of dress codes in church. The question that should be asked is not whether or not we need to be comfortable to come or whether or not our wardrobe will tempt others to sin. If our clothes say something, then surely what it says should be a message directed to the one we gather to worship when we go to church?

As Anglicans, we affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, then our manner of dress speaks directly to him, and we must ask ourselves what we say through that.

How would you dress to come before the Prime Minister of Canada or the Queen? A few years ago there was an uproar when Mr Justin Bieber was photographed with the Prime Minister while wearing overalls and a t-shirt. His manner of dress was identified as failing to show due respect for the person he was meeting. How much more should we recognize the need to send a clear message of reverence and respect when we come before Christ?

Does this mean going back to Sunday Best? Does it mean chastising those who don’t meet these standards? Absolutely not. The problem with encouraging people to wear comfortable clothes wasn't so much the informality of the dress, but the fact that the message we’re sending is that you don’t need to have your heart focused on Christ when you choose what you’re going to wear. 1 Sm 16. 7 says, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

While the general rule ought to look to some level of formality in dress, because that is how as a society we show respect, what matters is not the judgement of peers or the message we send to them, but the message on our heart we send to God. Someone who is simply used to wearing a suit or who does so out of an improper sense of understanding without doing so with the express intention of honouring God would not be as pleasing to God as the person who dresses quite casually, but for whom those clothes are the best they own and selected in a desire to honour God. For the same reason, modesty does have a place in how we dress for Church simply because of the message it sends to God. The concern, however, should not be about inciting sin in others.

In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ is recorded as saying, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on,” (6. 25). This seems to contradict the importance of dress, and indeed may well have been used to support the dress code revolution of the sixties and seventies that told us it didn't matter what we wore. At the same time, it should be remembered that just a few verses before in Chapter 5, Christ discussed how it was not the letter of the law that mattered, but the spirit. It is not enough to simply refrain from murder, but that we must avoid anger as well as both are subject to judgement (Mt 5. 22). This mirrors the interpretation of 1 Sm 16. 7 and what is truly being said is, what matters is not what you are wearing, but why you are wearing it.