On Cultural Incarnation

The Second Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As we continue in the season of Eastertide, many of the readings focus on the life of the early church as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles. In these readings from Acts, we hear how the disciples lived a life of faith together, shared all things in common and supported one another. This unity is supported by Scripture, where St Paul exhorts Euodia and Syntyche from the church in Philippi to, “agree in the Lord,” (Phil 4. 2). David’s Psalm 133 describes with vivid imagery the blessings and joy of unity.

It is not too long, though, before we hear of the reaction against the perseverance of the Christian faithful, and the growth of Christianity in the early Jewish communities. The circumcision controversy begins. Jewish leaders say that belief in Christ is acceptable, but only so long as you continued to follow the Law. When Christianity spreads to the gentiles, the majority of Christians were previously Jewish and elements of their culture create disunity as the early Christians struggle over the question of whether or not gentiles must be circumcised, a matter settled by a Council at Jerusalem which set the model for later ecumenical councils to define and resolve doctrinal disputes within the Church.

The picture painted in Acts, is broadly speaking one of an incarnational faith. Christianity incarnated into the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. And so too does it incarnate in the cultures in which its faithful operate. Modern psychology shows that the language we speak, and the culture we come from, shapes how we think and perceive the world.

Speaking historically, some doctrinal differences in the Christian East and Christian West were the result of differences in how theological concepts were rendered into Greek in the East and Latin in the West. In some cases, ultimately the same meaning was generally meant, but due to the language differences, the rendering and way the theology was perceived by the other culture was sufficiently different to cause disunity. While there are other issues at play, in many ways the filioque is the same understanding of God’s nature presented from two diametrically opposed cultural understandings. The nature of Christ as judge in the West and divine physician in the East, similarly highlights how both can hold orthodox understandings, but which have been shaped to different perspectives by the culture in which they are practiced.

It should come as no surprise, then, when division arises in the church. The extreme unity found in the earliest chapters of Acts is rooted in both cultural unity and in the physical witness of Christ Jesus. This was the age of the Apostles and disciples who had witnessed Christ’s miracles in person. And yet, division still came among them. If unity is to be found in Christ, then surely it is understandable that today, some manner of disunity would ultimately arise, at the very least because of the fact that Christianity has now spread to all cultures.

This should come as no shock. In the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church is divided by culture: Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. In the West, there is obviously the divide between Canterbury and Rome, but also within the Roman Catholic Church some practices diverge rooted in culture, as much as some Roman Catholics might claim otherwise.

There is good reason for this. God calls us into relationship with him: oneness with him. Not sameness with him. Sameness is the preserve of equality, while oneness is the preserve of unity. We are not meant to be equal with God, nor are we equal with each other. St Paul illustrates this well in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Cor 7-11)

There are two key points to this passage. First, “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” This is unity. This is oneness. All receive gifts of the Spirit, for a unified purpose. Second, he lists how some receive the gift of wisdom, others knowledge, others healing, etc. There is not equality, each is given the gifts they need to fulfil God’s purpose.

In much the same way, the incarnational nature of the church in distinct cultures is not necessarily equal. One tradition of Christians may emphasize the healing power of the Holy Spirit, while others may focus on the atoning power of Christ’s passion and resurrection. There is not equality, necessarily, in these incarnations of the church, or even necessarily fullness, but there is some degree of unity.

True unity is to be found when the four marks of unity are followed: the canon of Holy Scripture; the authoritative transmission of God’s word for humanity; the faith of the early church as articulated in the creeds and councils of the church, the order of ministry, passed down in apostolic succession and finally the sacramental life of the church, found chiefly in the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist.

Just like Euodia and Syntyche, where something, in this case, culture, divides the church, we must continue to follow St Paul’s advice to, “agree in the Lord,” for it is in God that our unity is found, not in compromise. Compromise is the road to equality, limiting and hemming in our faith in order to reduce the avenues for confrontation and conflict.

It is a great irony that if the sacraments are discarded (mere ordinances), as is the order of ministry (priesthood of all believers), the creeds and councils (generally in more anti-Catholic fuelled settings where anything of the historic church is viewed with suspicion) while retaining only the canon of Scripture (often with its own brand of sola scriptura and distinctive interpretation) there is some form of equality to be found (compare some of the constitutions and confessions of various protestant denominations) but in that, unity, oneness in Christ, has been lost.

Christianity incarnates differently in different cultures. Different rites or Churchmanships, different language to describe the same truths, and in some case a different emphasis on part of God’s nature. This does not detract from true unity, unity described in the Acts of the Apostles. What causes disunity is when the goal of sameness between humans is confused with oneness with God.

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.

On Catholicism

The Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity

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

Feast of Dedication

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the Catholic Church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Churchmanship

The Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who declarest thy almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running the way of thy commandments, may obtain thy gracious promises, and be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

When speaking of Anglicanism, there is broad diversity in style of worship, and even shockingly to some outsiders, of doctrine and theology. Often times, the understanding of Anglicanism is rooted in Churchmanship, a broad summation of that style of worship which itself is usually, but not always, a reflection of the doctrine and theological perspective of the Anglican in question.

There is an oversimplification here, but it can be traced back to the reality that originally there did tend to be a strong association between High and Low Churchmanship and the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic understandings of Anglicanism.

Prior to the 19th century, the practice of Anglicanism had become what today would be viewed as very Low Church. Altars were bare, priests wore very plain vestments. This reflected the Puritan influences from the 17th century wherein there was a stress on the personal relationship between parishioner and God. Ritual was viewed as something that separated the individual from God. At the same time that Anglicanism’s Catholicity was being highlighted by the Oxford Movement in the early 19th century, the ritualist movement appeared in response, giving liturgical expression to the theologies being developed that emphasized more corporate worship.

Straddling between the two extremes of High and Low Churchmanship were a myriad of groupings. Central Churchmanship involved a conservative and sometimes evangelical theology, but a much higher level of ritual than in standard Low Churchmanship. Latitudinarianism gave birth to Broad Churchmanship which today, sadly, encompasses many Anglicans.

Latitudinarianism was a pejorative term used to describe a movement that arose in the 17th century that stressed the idea of the Church of England as a civic expression of spirituality. The Church had a necessary role in the expression of spirituality, the cultivation of morality and so on, thus subscription to the Church of England itself was essential, however the doctrines, liturgy and practices were far less important as there could be, for the Latitudinarians, other sources. This was the source of the name: adherents argued that greater latitude be given to the practice of the Church in order to promote unity at a time following the English civil wars through to the Glorious Revolution of Parliament in 1688—an extremely unstable and turbulent time in English history.

There was often an association between Latitudinarianism and heterodoxy, as one might suppose given there often times rejection of orthodox doctrines and the supremacy of Scripture, and over the centuries the term Broad has tended to supplant Latitudinarianism to describe this form of Churchmanship. Unlike Low or High Churchmanship, Broad Churchmanship does not subscribe to a particular style of worship, but is generally associated at the very least with Liberal theology and often modernism.

In modern Broad Churchmanship, this has tended towards a revival of the view of the Church as merely the ‘nation at prayer’ and thus the doctrines of the Church can be informed by the philosophical values of the nation. In a more technical sense, modern philosophy, scientific understanding and hermeneutics are applies to the understanding of Scripture, which again holds less authoritative value, rather than the opposite which would generally be expected in more conservative theologies.

Because of this theological underpinning, which can see even a rejection of the statements of the Creeds, it is not difficult to see how both low and high practices can be incorporated. While there is a tendency towards High Church liturgical practices, due to the inherent beauty in the liturgy itself, Broad Churchmanship can also find expression in lower liturgical practices.

Discounting the heterodoxy of Broad Churchmanship, and recognizing that while less institutionally prone it can occur anywhere, each form of Churchmanship holds merit. The fact that each does hold merit does not mean, however, that one is not superior to another.

The question then becomes one of examining the purposes and suppositions of each form of Churchmanship, and the purposes of Holy Communion (and other gatherings) where the liturgy becomes an expression of that Churchmanship and thus that theology.

Worship is about ascribing worth to something or someone. According to JI Packer:

Worship is looking Godward and celebrating the worth—that is the praiseworthiness—of what we see. The Bible calls this activity glorifying God, or giving glory to God. “Glory” means, first, divinity on display, (the glory God shows us) and then, the response we make to God for this honour.

So when Christians gather on Sundays and in context Anglicans in particular, we do so first and foremost to ascribe worth to God by glorifying him. Anglican Churchmanship then is the response to the question of, “how do we glorify God and show his immeasurable worth?”

The Psalmists tell us all creation worships the Lord. “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” (Ps 19. 1) If all creation worships God, how can it in and of itself become a barrier to worshipping Him? We are called to worship God with all that we are (Mk 12. 30), and through the use of ritual we are able to reflect that. Forms of worship that engage the full senses and which worship God not merely in raised voices, but with smells and sights and even our very posture, recognizing that all creation worships God with us.

It is also worth noting that Church, the House of Prayer of the Lord, is a place for corporate worship. We come before God not simply as individuals, but as adopted sons and daughters in His family, members of a community of faith and the communion of saints.

The theology expressed in High Churchmanship is one that emphasizes a high view of God and his created world, and offers it all back to Him in due worship.