On the Articles: Article XXXVI

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.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

The final Articles of religion deal with a number of more practical matters primarily, while making less significant theological statements. While the Canadian Book of Common Prayer last revised in 1962 contains within it the rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops, the Ordinal, as it was commonly known, was originally published separate to the Book of Common Prayer. Similarly, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion themselves are not published within the BCP but separately. When Anglicans refer to the three formularies, though, they mean the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal referred to in this Article, and the whole of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

At the time of the English Reformation, the question of the right ordination of priests was one that became somewhat contentious. Especially as Mary assumed the throne and sought to restore Roman supremacy to England. This Article affirms the English rites that would be used to ordain priests to Christ’s priestly ministry.

The statement implicitly affirms the right of the English Church to exist as part of the Catholic Church apart from Roman jurisdictional authority, much as the Eastern Orthodox churches have since their inception (meaning since the time of the Apostles, not simply since the Schism in 1054).

This Article relates directly to Article XXIII which defined the need for a properly ordained priest to preside over the sacraments and to preach or teach. It is in this Article that it is clearly defined how we are to know who has properly called by God and consecrated by the Church for that task.

Just as there was an importance in defending the validity of English ordinations, it was also an article that was important in determining the invalidity of Protestant ministers to preside over English Catholics. At times, Protestants sought to take charge and preach and teach within English churches and due to the confusion of the day, this practice was allowed in some locales for a time. It was Article XXIII’s insistence on properly appointed ministers that clarified that it was not a congregational decision who would preach and teach, something that reflected the congregational polity of Presbyterians coming from Scotland, while it was this Article that clarified in perpetuity the importance of the Ordinal as establishing the means, qualifications and rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops.

It should be noted that this Article does not address lay ministers which have always existed as minor orders historically and today are viewed as laity with particular permission to act in a certain way. This includes licensed lay ministers who preach and officiate at services in parishes without permanent clergy as well as catechists and other particular forms of lay ministers who have permission to perform a specific function. These people are not considered to be a form of ordination to holy orders and therefore do not contravene this Article, and similarly find their practice in the authority of the Church to allow for local practices and customs as necessary.

On the Articles

The Sunday called Sexagesima

O LORD God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do: Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion have been referenced several times on this blog, because ultimately they are a key component of Anglicanism. They are not a confessional statement. Unlike continental Protestant reformers who drafted catechetical statements of belief, with supporting scriptural citations. These statements, while in ways being an anti-Roman Catholic statement in suggesting that the Roman Catholics were not following Biblical doctrine, were ultimately about positive statements of belief to help define the adherents of that particular denomination in contrast to other Christian groups, Roman Catholics and other Protestants, that surrounded them. In England, however, there tended to be less plurality, with the Church of England being the established and only Church in England until the instability of the English Civil War, and the establishment of the principles of religious toleration. With the back and forth, particularly during the earlier years of the English Reformation with the reign of Queen Mary I, there was also a practical need to establish, in positive and negative statements, how the Church of England differed from traditional Roman Catholic doctrine. With so much back and forth, some clergy were confused as to what they were to be promoting from the pulpit.

Many Anglicans today discount the Articles as mere historical documents, from a time and place so far removed from our own as to be inapplicable to modern life. Many of those same arguments are made about the authority of Holy Scripture by non-Christians. Anglican priests once were required to subscribe to the Articles upon their ordination, but are no longer required to do so directly, however in the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada, of which the Diocese of Calgary is a part, deacons and priests are required to swear an Oath of Assent prior to ordination reading as follows:

I, A.B. do solemnly make the following declaration: I assent to the Solemn Declaration adopted by the first General Synod in 1893 (as printed in the Book of Common Prayer), and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of the ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; I believe the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God; and in Public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, I will use the form in the said book prescribed and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority.

In a similar way, the Canons of the Anglican Church of Canada include the Articles through the same form of the Solemn Declaration in limiting the authority of General Synod to legislate only within the parameters of the Declaration.

While most Anglicans may no longer be familiar with the Thirty-nine Articles (they are not printed in the Book of Alternative Services, for instance), the reality is that they remain relevant, and ostensibly priests and deacons still subscribe to them in certain ways and they still have a limiting influence on the parameters of what the General Synod itself may legislate.

While it is true that modern Canada is quite different from the era in which the Articles were formulated (Canada itself did not exist then!), that does not in and of itself make the Articles irrelevant. The same faithful interpretation and application of Holy Scripture is needed to seek to continue to apply the Thirty-nine Articles to our faith today as we seek to live out our Anglican heritage in a world far removed from 17th century England. To quote JI Packer, “I believe that facing and dialoguing with the Thirty-nine Articles will help Anglicans to re-learn and re-apply some basic Biblical truths to which Anglican identity is bound up.”

Gerald Bray argues that the three traditional Anglican Formularies each sought to articulate the foundations of Anglicanism. The Articles of Religion articulate its doctrine. The Prayer Book articulates its devotional life. The Ordinal articulates its discipline, discussing the role and responsibilities of ordained clergy. Today, however, some of these foundations have shifted. In Canada, for instance, the Ordinal and Prayer Book are rarely consulted, cited or viewed as normative or even necessarily authoritative, having been supplanted by the modern Book of Alternative Services, with increasing pressure today for further revisions. It makes it much easier for those who seek to reshape the foundations of Canadian Anglicanism to suggest that The Book of Common Prayer 1662 and Ordinal are no longer authoritative because they can point to successors. It is much harder to do that in the case of the Articles—the doctrines of the Church—because there has been no modern alternative to the Articles of Religion presented or authorized in any of the other prayer book revisions that have occurred or which are slated to occur.

Broadly speaking the Articles are organized in three ways. The first section deals with fundamental Christian dogmas: the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, etc. These are Catholic beliefs, and beliefs on which Anglican Catholicity hinges. The largest section deals with areas in which the Church of England differed from Rome. In some cases, such as the rejection of Transubstantiation, this remains an issue of Catholicity, in other ways this also speaks to certain secondary matters which may or may not be particular to Anglicanism, and more often show the influence of the Continental Reformers. The final, smaller, section deals with issues particular to the Church of England especially and its relationship to the state and English society more generally. These Articles, however, still remain broadly applicable outside of England and help to understand the way in which the Church of England and Anglican Christians were viewed to relate to state and society more broadly.

The heart of the Articles, in describing the doctrines and values of the Church, is that it allows Anglican Christians to hold conviction in their beliefs. In an age when there is a muddling of what Christians believe, the Articles hold the answer. In an age when Christians are being challenged from secular beliefs and changing societal mores, the Articles are a firm foundation which Anglicans can study, learn and inwardly digest, affirming what their beliefs are.

They remain a way of grounding faith in the Truth they proclaim, in an age when many Christians are tempted to simply float between whatever sounds comfortable. The desire to make our faith comfortable is made possible when there is no firm foundation of faith. A person can enter into an Anglican parish, worship there, be baptised there, receive the Eucharist there and die there without ever having Anglican beliefs explained to them. There is nothing in the main service book used in Canada, the BAS, to explain what all of those beliefs are. Recapturing the strength of the doctrinal foundations from the Articles is one clear way of grounding the faith of Anglicans throughout the world.

The next few weeks will begin a series exploring the meaning of each of the Articles, in an effort to provide a modern and practical understanding of what we as Anglicans have historically, and ought to continue, to profess.

On Theology

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT O Lord, we beseech thee, that the course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by thy governance, that thy Church may joyfully serve thee in all godly quietness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The issue of Anglicanism and Same-Sex Marriage is once again front and centre. The US Supreme Court, in a civil ruling affecting the civil laws on marriage in the United States, and at the same time The Episcopal Church, the primary Anglican church in the United States had its triennial General Convention, which included a debate over the authorization of a revised rite for same-sex marriage. All of this has spilled over into Canada and elsewhere, including it must be noted non-Anglican traditions who have been compelled to respond to the development.

Metropolitan Tikhon of the Orthodox Church in America has perhaps had the best and most succinct response, in which he affirmed that the OCA has made, “issued a number of statements outlining, detailing and clarifying the teaching of our Holy Faith on this matter in light of challenges from our American society,” over the years, and:

The ruling does not change the teaching of the Church, but it does remind us of the need to be Christ-like in our dealings with everyone. The state has the responsibility to enact laws that protect the rights of each individual.  The Church, while it does not bless “same-sex marriages” or view them as sacramental, does see the image of Christ in every individual, and his or her worth in the eyes of the Lord Who died upon the Cross for our salvation.

This shows two important points. First, the statement reiterates the point that Church doctrine is not, and ought not to be, based on civil laws, such that this ruling (or the passage of the Marriage Act in 2004 in Canada) does not demand that the Church similarly make a change to its understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The second point is that while it does not mean doctrines or theologies of the Church must change, it may require that those same doctrines and theologies be applied in new ways that are adapted to the new realities of the society in which the Church exists.

This statement could well have been written by Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay a few decades ago, but is contrasted heavily with more recent responses. Retired TEC bishop Gene Robinson suggested that, “all religions will be under more pressure now to get in lockstep with society.”

The idea that the Church must, at least in part, base its theology and doctrines on civil developments is completely alien to traditional Anglicanism and the Anglican way of “doing” theology.

The three-legged stool is one way Anglicans have traditionally viewed as the model by which we do theology. First, Holy Scripture, then reason, embodied in the writings of the Fathers and saints throughout the ages, and finally tradition, embodied in the Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. For Canadian Anglicans, the Solemn Declaration of 1893, which clergy subscribe to prior to ordination, explicitly requires that they submit to the formularies and Holy Scripture, so it is a canonical requirement in addition to simply being part of the Anglican tradition used by Anglicans everywhere.

In the Articles themselves, we are reminded of the primacy of Scripture. Article VI states, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” They are the inspired word of God, and there is no better or more reliable source of information for us to turn to when seeking to establish or modify our theology or doctrines. For Anglicans, unlike Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, nothing can be taught as a requirement of the faith that cannot be proved by Holy Scripture.

Not all Scripture can be plainly interpreted, however. That is where the faculty of reason comes into play. Throughout the centuries, countless Christians have written and handed down homilies on the Scriptures and great works on theology. These works help us to understand the meaning behind Scripture as it has been understood by the Church throughout the centuries, and similarly how different doctrines of the church have been understood.

When we test a doctrine against Scripture, it can sometimes be simple enough to pick a few verses and claim they support the doctrine we are proposing, by virtue of presenting a skewed interpretation of Scripture. When we test against Scripture and then the view of the Church Fathers, this type of skewed interpretation is no longer possible, because we do not simply test it against the plain words of Holy Scripture itself, but also the accepted orthodox interpretations of Holy Scripture held throughout the centuries.

Finally, there is the tradition of the Church. The reality of Christianity is that there are many practices and views which have been held only in particular times and in particular places. When Anglicans do theology, therefore, it is essential that doctrines also be tested against the Anglican formularies. One might be able to find an understanding of the Eucharist that does not contradict Holy Scripture, and may even find support with one or more of the Church Fathers, or at least does not conflict with their writing, but if it remains in conflict with the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal or Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion then it remains outside the parameters of acceptable Anglican Doctrine.

An example of this might be the doctrine of transubstantiation as held by the Roman Catholic Church. One can argue in favour of it from Scripture, and a number of saints throughout history have held to doctrines consistent with transubstantiation, but Article XXVIII argues that, “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith,” and that transubstantiation, “hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

As we face increasing pressure for the Church to modernise her doctrines, to try to get in lockstep with society, as Bishop Gene Robinson put it, it is an important reminder that Church doctrine is based on God’s will and God’s law, not on the rules of society.

On the Anglican Communion

The Fifth Sunday in Lent commonly called Passion Sunday

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, mercifully to look upon thy people; that by thy great goodness they may be governed and preserved evermore, both in body and soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For someone who was neither raised Anglican, nor raised in a Commonwealth country, the Anglican Communion may take a word of explanation. This is particularly true for someone who is not familiar with Anglicanism at all, but has some basic knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church. Due to the many outward similarities—vestments, liturgies, etc—someone might think of the Anglican Communion as being a very similar structure to the Roman Catholic Church, with its leadership vested simply in the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the Bishop of Rome.

This, however, is not the case. The Anglican Communion is in fact an association of 38 autonomous national Anglican churches, called provinces, which are in full communion with the Church of England. While the Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals, his position is more akin to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the early Christian East or the Bishop of Rome in the early Western Church. The Archbishop has precedence of honour, but does not directly exercise authority outside of the Church of England as the Bishop of Rome does today.

While in certain ways, this organization more closely resembles both the organization of the Early Church as well as in certain ways the continued organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church, much like Anglicanism itself, the Anglican Communion is a product of its history.

With England spreading its political power throughout the world in the form of the British Empire, religion was sure to follow. The Church of England held services in Canada in 1578 and the first permanent Anglican parish established in North America was in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607.

Following the American war for independence, the Episcopal Church was founded, borrowing its naming convention from the Scottish Episcopal Church. With the ordination of William White and Samuel Provoost in 1787, there was a direct tie to the Church of England by an autonomous national Anglican church, foreshadowing the nature of the Anglican Communion.

Shortly afterwards, Charles Inglish was consecrated as the Bishop of Nova Scotia, and given episcopal oversight over all of British territories in North America. Over the next hundred years, many more colonial bishops would be consecrated as a result of various English missionary societies. Missionaries had established Anglican churches throughout the British Empire, and it was in 1840 that Bishop Blomfeld of London published a letter asking the Archbishop of Canterbury extend the episcopate, as by this time there were millions of practicing Anglicans in the colonies, thus far only ten colonial bishops had been consecrated. As a result of his advocacy, the Colonial Bishoprics Council was created, and many new colonial sees and bishops were created.

While these first bishops were originally quite tied to England—they were de facto extra-territorial suffragan bishops in practice—they would ultimately gain greater autonomy over time, both personally and legislatively. After a series of legal decision relating to the stipends of colonial bishops in the 1850s and 1860s, colonial churches were given the ability to appoint and consecrate their own bishops.

This autonomy in the appointment of bishops led in 1867 led to the first Lambeth Conference, which was attended by 76 bishops from around the world. While in many ways modelled on the ecumenical councils of the Early Church, the Lambeth Conference was not designed to be authoritative, due in large part to the desires of colonial bishops to maintain their autonomy with respect to local circumstances, and instead the Lambeth Conferences were designed to be consultative in nature, helping bishops to from different parts of the world to connect with one another and in particular in the early days of the conferences, to help English bishops in the Church of England to understand the challenges and struggles of the colonial bishops.

In Canada in particular, the first Canadian synods were established in the 1850s, the first Canadian synods were established at the local level, and in 1861 the Church of England in Canada (a name that would be retained until the 1970s when it became the Anglican Church of Canada) became somewhat self-governing, though again largely this meant greater local autonomy rather than a colony wide organization for Anglicans in British North America. It took until 1893 for the first General Synod to be called in Canada, and one of its first acts was to promulgate the Solemn Declaration of 1893. This document laid out the relationship between the Church of England in Canada and the Church of England, as well as the limits on the autonomy of the Canadian General Synod.

Of particular importance, the Solemn Declaration declared that the Church in Canada would be in full communion with the Church of England, that it received the catholicity of the Church of England, described as:

one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders…

This description incorporates the four tenets of the early Church: one canon of Holy Scripture, one faith defined by the three creeds and seven Ecumenical Councils of the early Church, the one sacramental life and the threefold order of apostolic ministry.

The solemn declaration goes on to incorporate the three Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

This model would become fairly standard for the way in which the relationship between the Church of England and her daughter churches around the world would be viewed. It should be noted that while there is an emphasis on full communion with the Church of England, doctrine comes from the formularies and the early Church, not the Church of England itself.

In modern times, the Anglican Communion has added two more “Instruments of Communion” to the decennial Lambeth Conferences, namely the standing Anglican Consultative Council and the Primate’s Meetings. All three of these instruments work together to help provide a venue for dialogue and discussion, but unlike, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, it is not the Archbishop of Canterbury that provides doctrinal leadership for all worldwide Anglicans, but in theory the inheritance of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, along with Anglican catholicity, the Scriptures, the creeds and councils, the sacraments and the order of ministry.

On the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

The Second Sunday in Lent

ALMIGHTY God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardly in our souls; that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Unlike the Sacraments discussed so far, Matrimony is not a necessary sacrament for everyone. Some people are called to celibate lives of singleness. For those whom God calls into relationship, however, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the means by which God’s grace and love are joined into the relationship, sanctifying it and strengthening it in holiness.

In Holy Scripture, God’s blessing of the unions between men and women play an important role throughout. In the Old Testament, the union between Adam and Eve is described in Genesis, and God’s blessing of other unions is mentioned with numerous other Biblical figures. In the New Testament, the Gospel of St John records Christ’s first miracle during the wedding at Cana. Today, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is one in which Anglicans, particularly in Canada and the United States, have recently devoted much debate and indeed controversy, namely over the amendment of canons concerning the Sacrament to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples. This piece will explore the sacramental and scriptural basis for Holy Matrimony, which finds no basis for conferring God's blessing on such partnerships, but will not seek to discuss the relationship of civil marriage to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and what distinctions might be made with respect to civil marriage of same-sex couples.

Before delving into the question of the sacrament itself, a definition in terms might be useful. While the terms are often used interchangeably, in this article, the sacrament will be referred to as Matrimony or Holy Matrimony, while the civil institution, recognized by the state, will be referred to as marriage. While the two are entirely distinct, the failure to draw the distinction between one as a sacrament ordained by God to guard, hallow and protect the sacred gift of love he grants the couple, while the other is a civil institution granted by governments in order to provide a framework of legal benefits and rights intended to support families. One can be married, recognized by the civil government as such, and yet not receive God’s blessing. The criteria on which marriage is based are not in any way connected to God’s basis for estate of Holy Matrimony, and in discussing the subject, care should be taken not to confuse the two.

Matrimony, while not directly ordained by Christ, is mentioned several times in Holy Scripture, including by Christ himself. St Mark’s gospel has Christ responding to the Pharisees questioning him over marriage when he says:

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mk 10. 6-9)

In this passage, Christ quotes from Genesis and confirms the nature of the Holy Matrimony as being ordained by God from the start of creation. In the historic sense, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has been one practiced since the early days of the Church. First century Rome was not well known for its chastity, and the morals of the Christians were viewed as a unique curiosity. It is clear then the importance that the hallowing of a union would have in the early Church.

In Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles also mention much the same definition of Holy Matrimony in Article XXXV which lists the homilies in the Book of Homilies, one of which is On the Estate of Holy Matrimony. This homily lays out nearly the same reasons for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony as does the Book of Common Prayer, 1662:

[Holy Matrimony] is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men...

The Canadian Book of Common Prayer similarly outlines three reasons for Holy Matrimony:

Matrimony was ordained for the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman; for the procreation of children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord; and for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, in both prosperity and adversity.

Both are generally in accord, though the 1662 Book of Common Prayer had one additional reason for Holy Matrimony, “and to avoide Fornication,” as the Book of Homilies puts it. While the Canadian BCP does not list this particular point, it remains implicit simply through the scriptural reason for this argument, which is laid out by St Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians.

The three primary reasons for Matrimony are laid out in the Book of Common Prayer as follows. The first is the hallowing of the union between man and woman. This first reason therefore is to set apart the union between a man and woman as sacred. The emphasis here is on God blessing the union. It contrasts with the third reason--which has to do with the mutual support of the man and woman--which could just as easily be argued to be present in secular relationships. This makes it the key distinction between Matrimony and marriage or other forms of relationships. The second reason for Matrimony is procreation and the raising of children in faith. Procreation has often been listed among reasons for marriage, but it is the key component of raising children in faith and knowledge of God that is specified in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

These reasons, the traditional and scriptural basis for Matrimony, illustrate the ways in which God’s grace is extended to a relationship to promote a blessed union between man and woman, and further illustrate how Christian Matrimony is set apart from secular and civil marriage.

On the Sacrament of Holy Orders

The Sunday called Sexagesima

O LORD God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do: Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Of the five remaining Sacraments of the Church, Holy Orders, the sacrament of ordination to the Priesthood is perhaps one of the most important. It is so significant as to be difficult to know where to begin. One of the Catholic marks of the faith of the early church was the belief in one apostolic order of ministry, with the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons.

In St John Chrysostom’s Treatise on the Priesthood, he describes the Patristic understanding of the Priesthood when he says:

For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks amongst heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Paraclete [i.e., Holy Spirit] Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels.

It should be noted in this paragraph that Chrysostom refers through the Spirit to charisms, spiritual gifts being conferred upon individuals which enable them to fulfil their office. This view of the Priesthood is similarly reflected in the Preface to the Ordinal, which notes the threefold order of ministry which has existed since the time of the apostles, and states that no one, on their own private authority, may presume to execute the ordained office, and instead that they must be appointed to the office through the sacramental laying on of hands, after having been judged as properly called and qualified for the office:

IT is evident unto all men, diligently readinge holye scripture, and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme, there hathe bene these orders of Ministers in Christes church, Bisshoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, which Offices were evermore had in suche reverent estimacion, that no man by his own private aucthoritie, might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen, to have such equalities, as were requisite for the same. And also by publique prayer, with imposicion of handes, approved, and admitted thereunto.

While the language is archaic (this version is from the 1559 ordinal), the message is clear. The Articles of Religion have several points similarly pertinent to the priesthood and its sacramental importance. Article XXXVI simply states that the form of sacramental ordination described in the ordinal is the only valid way to consecrate someone to ministry, and further proclaims of the Ordinal that, “neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly.” This is a clear criticism and rejection of various continental doctrines being developed that rejected the ordained ministry as a form of superstition or corruption of the Christian faith.

Earlier on, Article XXIII had similarly spoken of the necessity of maintaining lawful order in ministering to a congregation, and that those who are not licensed should not preach or teach in church. The question, then, is why this is important? Is it simply a superstitious following of ancient practices which resulted from the cultural context in which Christianity was established or was the order of Ministry something from God?

The priesthood is thus viewed as something special. Ordination is a word that evokes feelings of God’s calling and ordering of things. The priesthood is not a mere job one selects, but a vocation to which God calls particular individuals. This is a sacrament that is rejected in particular among Protestants who view the Priesthood of All Believers as invalidating any sacramental appointment of only particular people to the Priesthood.

In this view, there is no priesthood in the sense of a distinction between laity and clergy. All Christians are called to act as priests. There are certain verses to which this doctrine is ascribed, notably 1 St Peter 2. 5-9 which makes multiple references to all Christians as forming a Royal Priesthood or being Royal Priests depending upon the particular translation. In Catholic traditions, the Priesthood of All Believers can be understood in the context of the changes brought by Christ in respect of the Jewish Priesthood.

In the Old Testament, the Priesthood was set apart (the Levites) and the Priesthood ministered only to the Jews. The priests held the responsibility of orienting the Jews towards God. In the New Testament, however, all people of the earth have access to salvation through Christ, and the priesthood no longer ministers to a particular people. The chosen are now not the Jews, but all Christians believers. All Christians have a responsibility of evangelism, as we were called to do by Christ in the Great Commission. In this way, all peoples are oriented towards God, but that does not preclude a subset of faithful Christians who are called to ministry of Christians in particular through the teaching of right doctrine and the administration of the Sacraments.

There are a number of verses of Scripture that refer to this priestly vocation. In Romans, St Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit sanctifying him, and God’s grace enabling him to carry out the priestly service of the gospel. In Acts, there are early descriptions of ordinations as new disciples who are committed to the Lord for the purpose of maintaining local Christian communities.

These were not simply practices which resulted from happenstance, but a clear desire by God to set apart those people chosen for the vocation of the priestly ministry. It is a task which is important, and speaks to the question of the role of priests. In the Book of Common Prayer, the Intercession sums up two of the chief roles of ordained priests when it says, “Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and specially to thy servant N. our Bishop, that they may both by their life and doctrine set forth thy true and living Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments…”

This line speaks to a number of verses which lay out the importance of the Priest’s role. As teachers, they first and foremost are responsible for doctrine. Doctrine and theology is based on Holy Scripture and must be tested against it. For many Christians, however, understanding the Bible can be difficult. Its words were written thousands of years in the past, in cultures alien to our own. Its interpretation and teaching therefore becomes an important part of the role of the Priest. There is a danger here, though, and a reason why this responsibility is vested in Priests and not simply anyone who reads the Scriptures.

The interpretation of the cultural context of Scripture, or our application of our own cultural context to its interpretation, cannot be seen as an exercise that seeks to shape God in the image and likeness of man. Rather, as St Paul says, Scripture is, “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3. 16) and helps us to more fully reflect the image and likeness of God in which we were created. Elsewhere, St Paul exhorts Christians to, “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thess 2. 15). This mirrors the commitment made in the Solemn Declaration of 1893 which concludes saying, “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 to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.”

The second part of the responsibility referenced there is the administration of the sacraments. A Catholic understanding of the sacraments sees them as conferring God’s grace. While Article XXVI notes that God’s grace can act through the Sacraments, even if the minister administering them is evil, the validity of the sacraments can be questioned. If you are not baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is not a valid baptism; such practices are held for instance by Oneness Pentecostals. Regardless of the state of the minister, if they refuse to administer the bread and wine of the Eurcharist, you cannot receive. This is again the case in a number of non-sacramental protestant churches that reject the effectiveness of the sacraments, and therefore do not practice them at all or practice them only irregularly.

The priesthood is a vocation, appointed by God, by which he calls ordinary people to an extraordinary task, and is one of the more important Sacraments of the Church.

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.

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 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.

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.