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Many Anglicans today discount the Articles as mere historical documents, from a time and place so far removed from our own as to be inapplicable to modern life.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 Identity

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.

This post marks the 100th post since Canterbury Calgarian began back in August 2014. The first post explored the history of the English Church, and began a brief series that traced the history of Anglicanism through the centuries. One hundred posts later, it seems fitting to spend a bit of time exploring Anglican identity today in light of the myriad of other subjects that have been explored since that original historical overview.

What makes an Anglican today an Anglican? What distinguishes us from other Christian traditions and denominations?

Anglicanism is Evangelical. From the outset of the English Reformation, this was one of the goals—to suggest that the ultimate authority in the Christian faith was God’s word written. That although other things could be held to be required to be believed, none could be required to be believed as necessary for salvation. Article VI of the Articles of Religion states as much in plain words, and indeed throughout the prayer book are references to the sufficiency of Holy Scripture.

It becomes clear that Anglicanism as an identity is evangelical: it finds salvation in Christ through his gospels. This establishes Scriptures as the ultimate canon of orthodox belief, and also leads to the desire to evangelize and spread the word, both because it is the only way others may be saved and because it is Christ that commands us to do so in Scripture.

ALMIGHTY God, who by thy blessed Apostle it hast taught us that there is none other name given among men whereby we must be saved, but only the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may ever glory in this Name, and strive to make thy salvation known unto all mankind; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (Collect for the Name of Jesus, 320)

So Anglicanism is at its heart evangelical. It is also charismatic.

Anglicanism is trinitarian and in so being remains open to the activity and presence of the Holy Spirit. Many collects refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of Confirmation is maintained to promote the reception, as is Biblically taught, of the Holy Spirit in order that he may indwell a Christian’s life and support and strengthen them. It is not a requirement or character of the Anglican identity to see manifested charisms of the Holy Spirit as somehow being necessary demonstrations of faith, but rather it speaks to a willingness to be open in all situations to the activity of the Holy Spirit, even when there is no direct perception of the intercession of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit’s place is deeply tied to the Anglican Church of Canada in particular, in that the Solemn Declaration of 1893 which declares that we continue to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was given by Christ to those who believe, and that it is through the Spirit that we are empowered in right worship of God the Father.

The Solemn Declaration itself also defines our Catholicity when it notes that we hold to the Catholic faith received and interpreted by way of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and 39 Articles of Religion, and that we are, “to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.” In order words, to maintain that Catholicity.

Even in the Book of Alternative Services, that Catholicity is maintained and referred to quite explicitly in the preface to the ordination rites where it says, “It is also recognized and affirmed that the threefold ministry is not the exclusive property of this portion of Christ’s catholic Church, but is a gift from God for the nurture of his people and the proclamation of his gospel everywhere.” Put simply, there is no such thing as an Anglican priest, but rather a Catholic priest living out their orders in Anglican tradition.

That Catholicity is similarly affirmed in the Creeds and the sacraments which are maintained. While the Thirty-Nine Articles draw a distinction between the two great dominical sacraments instituted by Christ, the remaining five remain clearly Biblical and received by the whole Catholic Church, east and west.

Even there is a clear distinction, however, that our Catholicity is Anglican, which is to say, it is subject to Anglican distinctives. We receive what was accepted by the Catholic Church, the canon of Scripture and the Sacraments, the threefold order of ministry, but yet we maintain our Anglican Formularies to help interpret and apply what has been received, just as we accept the role of the Fathers in informing our interpretation of Scripture.

The Anglican Formularies particularly speak to some differences between Anglican Catholicism and Roman Catholicism, which is an understandable historical development given that Roman Catholicism was the only competing form of Christianity for the English Church in the time of the English Reformation. While the English Church had largely always maintained distinctives from Rome itself, these had begun to diminish in the 13th century through to the 16th century when the authority of the Pope was removed from England.

It makes sense, then, that the 39 Articles are the nearest thing Anglicanism has to a confessional statement. Rather than needing to assert the authority of Scripture behind a confessional statement, as continental Protestants were doing, the 39 Articles of Religion served to articulate how Anglican Catholicism differed from Roman Catholicism. We believed in the real presence, but not Transubstantiation. We believe in tradition, but it is subservient to Holy Scripture (Article XX) and there are limits on the authority of the Church to teach tradition, which contrasts with Rome in which Tradition and Holy Scripture are held to be equal in authority.

As a whole, these clear a clear identity, centred in God, in fellowship with other Christians, but practising the Christian faith in both an ancient and modern way. Rooted in the Holy Scriptures and the practices and teachings of the Early Church and the Fathers, articulated in the ancient Creeds and Councils and finally in the Anglican formularies, but also locally adapted to the needs of our modern society (for instance, the Canadian Book of Common Prayer includes prayers for our Canadian forms of Government and additional prayers relating to agriculture). Anglicans are evangelical, charismatic and Catholic.

While this description and identity helps us to understand our relationship to other Christians, it is also important to understand that first and foremost, we are not evangelical, or charismatic or Catholic or even Anglican. Our foremost identity must always be as children of God, adopted into his family through Christ, and in fellowship with all other brothers and sisters in Christ who make up the body.

On Roads

The Sunday called Septuagesima

O LORD, we beseech thee favourably to hear the prayers of thy people; that we, who are justly punished for our offences, may be mercifully delivered by thy goodness, for the glory ofthy Name; through Jesus Christ our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Christianity is often presented as a journey in Scripture. Whether navigating wide or narrow roads or gates (St Mt 7. 13, 14), we are travelling. St Paul’s conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, a phrase which itself has become synonymous with significant change in a person’s life course, and which will be celebrated tomorrow during the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul.

On the Road to Emmaus is an important journey in Scripture that takes place on a road, but tells a slightly different story. Told in St Luke’s Gospel (24. 13-32) and later referred to in St Mark’s Gospel (16. 12, 13), it tells the story of two disciples travelling from Jerusalem to the town of Emmaus who encounter Christ on that road. But looking more closely at the story, it shows us the unfolding of the mass, the service of Holy Communion, and is an important reminder of why we do what we do in our Sunday liturgy.

The story begins, “That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened.” As with many stories in Scripture, it begins without the necessary context and the beginning of the chapter must be reviewed. That very day refers to the day of the Resurrection, Sunday. Two of Christ’s disciples are gathered on Sunday discussing him.

As Christ says in St Matthew’s Gospel, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them,” (18. 20). So it is and Christ comes among them. He joins them on the road. While the gospel account does not record the disciples inviting Christ specifically to join them, the fact that he is immediately included in the conversation suggests he was invited and welcomed to continue the journey with them. This mirrors the entrance rites, and particularly the Collect for Purity in which God is asked to come among his people as they gather.

Next the disciples, one of whom is identified as Cleopas, begins explaining, at Christ’s question, what had happened with Christ’s death and the early reports of his resurrection. These verses parallel another important part of the mass, that of community announcements! This simple view ignores more of what can be gleaned from a closer examination of these passages, however, which tie these verses to the penitential rite.

The two disciples are having an animated discussion, and Scripture tells us, “And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad.” (17) Christ calls his people to unburden themselves before him, just as we are called to unburden ourselves before him in the confession. Their response to Christ makes this clearer as they express their disappointed belief that Christ was not who they thought he was, and their scepticism over earlier reports in the day that Christ had risen.

Christ responds to their concerns in a bridge between the end of the penitential rite in which he gives absolution and comfort to them where he says:

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (v 26, 27)

When Christ says it was necessary for these things to happen, he is directly responding to the sadness in their hearts where they were distressed that Christ was not the Messiah they believed him to be. This also forms a bridge to the Liturgy of the Word, as the then goes on to recount and explain the Scriptures to them. This also serves to highlight the importance of the lectionary. He began at the beginning and moved on through the Prophets; he did not simply teach a 15 part series on his topic of choice, but the Word in its fullness was proclaimed and explained in his sermon.

As he finished explaining the Word to them, the next verse tells us they drew near to where they were going. This is a reference to the village of Emmaus, but in the context of this exploration of parallels, it also holds true that  following the Liturgy of the Word is the Liturgy of the Table, that place which truly represents the destination of the mass itself.

When they come to the table, Christ, “took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him.” (30, 31) Here he mirrors the four actions of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, he takes it, blesses it, breaks it and distributes it. The next verse says that upon receiving it, their eyes were opened and they recognized him. It was not when he first appeared, not when he explained the Scriptures to them but in the sacrament that they came to truly know him. Just as Christ is present with us always, abiding within us, and as well comes among us when two or three are gathered, it is through the Eucharist that he comes in a particular and special way.

In the Litugy of the Table the eyes of the disciples are opened in faith, while during the Liturgy of the Word, their hearts began to burn within them as the Scriptures were opened to them. Mirroring the dismissal, in which the people gathered are sent forth, the disciples hurry back to Jerusalem to find the Apostles. “Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread,” (35)

At the end of the mass, the priest dismisses the people saying, “The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,” and in the Book of Alternative Services the dismissal is made even more clear where it says something to the effect of, “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” In both cases it is clear, the people are being commissioned to go forth, like apostles, and share the love of God they have received with others.

The account of the encounter with Christ on the Road to Emmaus is one of many roads in the Scriptures. It is one of many events and encounters which hints at how Christ wants us to act, and how we are to love and serve the Lord. It is also a reminder that the way we worship on Sundays is not just an accident of history, but is the clear teaching of not just Scripture but Christ himself.

On the Comforter

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.

Christianity is trinitarian. We are all exposed to it. Whether it be in the reciting of classic prayers such as the Gloria Patri or solely through Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we have experience in hearing about it. We experience the Father in most of our Old Testament readings. Much of our Sunday services are dedicated to the Son, as indeed is the season of Advent in which we anticipate his coming in history, his coming now and his coming again. But what about the other guy?

For many Christians, they may as well have been baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the other guy. Who are we talking about? Who is the other guy? Why does he matter? That is an easy question to ask and a longer one to answer, and will occupy a series of posts over the following weeks.

For some Christians, the reality is that they are uncomfortable with the Holy Spirit. The Acts of the Apostles tell of a number of great miracles that the Apostles performed under the inspiration of and by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is far easier for us, with our modern sensibilities, to look upon those miracles, and even upon Christ, and acknowledge them as something that may have historically happened, but maybe were just exaggerations and embellishments to the written record to enhance the authority of the Apostles. Surely there is no way that those things could still be happening today.

Cessasionists make that argument that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer provided, and this viewpoint is one that ultimately suggests there is little activity or purpose for the Holy Spirit today. By suggesting this, it shifts an emphasis in empowerment away from the Holy Spirit and back to God, particularly when the suggestion is made that the gifts of the Spirit ended due at least in part to God’s judgement against unbelief, as some cessasionists argue.

Lack of familiarity, which can come from this and other viewpoints that marginalize the activity of the Holy Spirit, can make Christians ultimately uncomfortable with the Holy Spirit. When our day is spent in praise of God for his Son, with no reference to the Holy Spirit or to Gifts of the Spirit, especially if Gifts of the Spirit are characterized as something meant for a previous time, it can necessarily lead to us feeling discomfort or confusion.

Who is the Holy Spirit? To paraphrase Origen, let us return to the evangelical and apostolic, and consider what Holy Scripture tells us.

The Holy Spirit is not an innovation of Christ’s time, and the Spirit of God is referenced a number of times in the Old Testament. From the Spirit of Creation (Ps 104. 30) to the teacher of truth (Job 32. 8) and even as a companion and manifestation of God’s presence among his people (Hag 2. 5). There is a rich tapestry that forms the foundation of the clearer revelation of the Holy Spirit, who is sent to continue these tasks in a new way in the New Testament.

Shortly before his arrest and trial, Christ famously promised to send the Holy Spirit, saying, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you,” (St Jn 14. 16, 17). He continues two chapters later saying that the Holy Spirit, “will guide you in all truth,” (St Jn 16. 14).

The promise Christ makes in the Gospel is fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles:

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2. 1-4)

What is notable as that the Holy Spirit came with a visible sign of empowerment. The Apostles were emboldened and equipped for the task Christ had given them, just as Christ had foretold at his Ascension when he said, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth,” (Acts 1. 8).

The Bible speaks in several other places of the continued power and effect of the Holy Spirit. St Paul in particular spoke voluminously on the gifts of the Spirit, and the role of the Holy Spirit in our Christian lives. Familiarity with the Holy Spirit requires only reading of Scripture, and as the Holy Spirit is himself (note him, a person of the trinity and not an impersonal force as is suggested by saying it) part of the Trinity, to know the Father and to know the Son is to know the Holy Spirit.

For Anglicans, our familiarity with the Holy Spirit ought to extend beyond that. In our common prayer, we pray to and by the Holy Spirit in many different occasions. Whether it be through some of those ancient prayers, such as the Gloria Patri, references to the Holy Spirit in the creeds, or through numerous collects and other prayers, the Holy Spirit is central to Christian belief and Anglican practice.

he arguments of cessationists simply don’t have merit. Christ didn’t send the Holy Spirit to astonish or amaze, but to equip! Anyone who holds true to Christianity ought not to be concerned, surprised or anxious about reference to the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts or empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Christ himself has sent the Holy Spirit to be our comforter, to come beside us, to guide and strengthen us, to sustain and equip us for his good work.

The Fourth Sunday in Advent is our final Sunday spent focused on the anticipation of his coming. That coming does not simply refer to his coming in history through his incarnation and nativity, however. It is his coming in history, how he comes in the Eucharist and his coming again on the last day. The theme of this fourth Sunday in Advent is love. The collect calls for God to stir up his power among us. While Christ’s coming in history is the ultimate display of his love (St Jn 3. 16) it could equally be seen that the sending of the Holy Spirit is another great testament to God’s love for mankind as the Holy Spirit truly is God’s power among us today. For it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that we are able to live in Christ, and through living in Christ to be adopted into the family of God. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore, that, by Christ, we are to come to know God, one of the primary emphases of the season of Advent.

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 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 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.