On the Articles: Article I

The First Sunday in Lent

O LORD, who for our sake didst fast forty days and forty nights: Give us grace to use such abstinence, that, our flesh being subdued to the Spirit, we may ever obey thy godly motions in righteousness and true holiness, to thy honour and glory; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. 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.

I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
THERE is but one living and true God, ever- lasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

For those who consider Anglicanism to be a protestant tradition, they can look to something like Article I. For those unfamiliar with Protestantism, this would seem to be a simple statement of Nicene, Trinitarian orthodoxy, but it is also clear that it is a near word for word copy of the first article of the Augsberg Confessions. Luther’s influence there is undeniable in the fashioning of the clause, but the reality is that no Catholic Christian would deny anything presented in this Article. While it expresses the truth of the Nicene Creed, its format, exploring the threeness and oneness of the Godhead is somewhat more reminiscent of the Athanasian Creed.

Its arrangement is poetic, but also provides a logical progression to cover fourdifferent aspects of our understanding of God.

First, “there is but one living and true God, ever-lasting, without body, parts, or passions.” We believe in only one God. This is the story of revelations. From the henotheistic origins in the early time of the Jews to the ultimate monotheistic revelation, God has revealed himself as the sole deity in existence.  God is also revealed as being transcendent: he is before time and will exist after the end of time; he is without created form. The form “body, parts, or passions” is one of the repeated literary choices made to maintain threes, but again emphasises that in no way are we as created beings like God: he is well beyond us.

Next, “of infinite power, wisdom and goodness.” Again three, always emphasizing the trinitarian formula. God is without limits, wisdom not simply beyond comprehension but infinite. And his goodness is similarly not simply beyond our understanding but is perfect and complete.

Then, “the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and indivisble.” It is worth noting that in the Latin, the word rendered Maker would today more accurately be rendered as creator. God made everything from nothing, not just that he made everything. It is through and by him that all things—seen and unseen—have their being. God created the angels and all things spiritual that lie outside of this created world.

Finally, “and in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity; The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” This section articulates two very important realities. First, that God is trinity. Three persons in one substance, power and eternity. This is an interesting formulation in that not only does it articulate the traditional “three persons in one essence, but furthermore reinforces that there was never a time when God existed without the Son or Holy Ghost, because they share one eternity, and further suggests that the Son and Holy Ghost are not subordinate to the Father as they share one power. The second critical point of this section is that it affirms that God has revealed himself: he is not just the “Triune God” of three persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

These are all simple statements, but the reality is that they addressed particular heresies of the early Church, and today show the relevance of the Articles more and more, given the fact that many of these heresies are finding renewed vigour. The observation that today’s theological innovations are just a reformulation of yesterday’s heresies is quite accurate. There are today attempts to redefine who God is, rejecting his identification as the Father because it’s not politically correct. There are those who deny Christ’s divinity because it is superstitious. There are those who need to be reminded what it means to be a Christian, and Article I states some of the most profound truths about Christianity. In some ways, Article I is perhaps more relevant to Anglicans today than it would have been when it was originally published, as the truths professed here were not systematically under attack in the 16th century in the way they are today.

Anyone who says that the Articles are merely a historical document and of no value today needs only to open their eyes and see that they speak to eternal truth that is being challenged. It is by affirming the Articles and recognizing that the fullness of the Trinity is found in our Anglican heritage, as it is in all orthodox Christian traditions, that we see that there is nothing historic about the Articles, but that instead they are timeless in their truth.

On the Three Streams of Worship

The Second Sunday after Epiphany

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who dost govern all things in heaven and earth: Mercifully hear the supplications of thy people, and grant us thy peace all the days of our life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Anglicanism seems to love things in threes. That is entirely reasonable given the centrality of the Holy Trinity to the Christian faith. In terms of worship, there are three streams of worship which correspond to these three persons of the Trinity. The most familiar to most people would be the Mass or Holy Communion. Anglicans also worship through the Daily Offices regularly. Historically Morning Prayer was the normative form of Sunday worship for many years until the Eucharist was restored to prominence in the 19th century. Finally, there is a third stream of worship which exists that is far less regularized, which I call Devotional Reception.

The Mass or Holy Communion is the most commonly understood form of worship in Anglicanism. It includes a number of prayers and Scripture readings, many of which deal with God the Father, the son or the Holy Spirit in some combination, making this seem like a form of worship which emphasizes all three persons, but ultimately as the name implies it is the celebration of the Eucharist which forms the central focus of the service of Holy Communion. It is in the Eucharist that we focus the centrality of the worship on the second person of the Trinity. Christ Jesus was incarnate, died for our sins and rose again. He commanded at the last supper that we do this in remembrance of him, and the entire crescendo of Eucharistic worship is that act of re-membering his propitiatory sacrifice.

The second form of common worship is that of the Daily Office. Morning and Evening Prayer are a psalm-centric form of worship, and owing to that they are much more centrally focused on the revelation of God the Father’s nature. The Daily Office originates in Jewish prayer practice, which involved prayer throughout the day at particular times. As Christianity developed, these prayer times were retained and liturgies developed to formalize their use among Christians. The Daily Office represents the Anglican use of these prayers and combines a number of the hours into two simple services for morning and evening. Much like with the Eucharist, which thematically is focused on Christ himself but which includes reference and worship of the other members of the Trinity, the Daily Office maintains references to Christ and the Holy Spirit, most often through the collects and the New Testament readings. The centrality of the service, however, remains the worship of God through the Psalms, whether read or chanted.

It also distinguishes itself in that it is a daily office. The normative practice among Anglicans with respect to Holy Communion would be weekly only, though in some cases an additional service of Holy Communion might be sought during the week. With morning and evening prayer, it becomes a daily practice of honouring God and exploring who he is. While the Revised Common Lectionary of readings takes you through the Bible in a three year cycle, Morning and Evening Prayer cycle though the Psalter every month, and it is only through their daily use that the RCL will cycle through the whole of Scripture during those three years. It creates and enhances a much stronger rhythm of Scripture reading and prayer than does only a once-a-week communion, even whereby the grace imparted in the Eucharist is unique versus the grace that is usually received through simple prayer and Scripture reading.
Taken together, these two are the most familiar practices of Anglicanism, but they place their emphasis only on two of the three persons of the Trinity. The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is in these places limited to references in prayers and in Scripture readings. There is need for a third type of service, which can go by many names, but ultimately the title Devotional Reception seems apt because it captures the two aspects of this service, particularly as it relates to the Holy Spirit.

In the Daily Office, it is a clear action of worship and praise of the Father. If there is reception, it is most clearly the imparting of revelation from God’s word. In the Holy Communion, there is an offering on the part of the people—“And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee,”—but also there is the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. When we gather then to honour the third person of the Trinity, how ought that to look?

One concern often expressed over modern praise music is that it offers an emotional response to the people. At various times, Evangelicals have expressed concern over how worship interacts with their regular Sunday gatherings which themselves often involve simply a combination of praise music and preaching. Defenders of modern praise music suggest that there is no reason a parishioner could not get a similar emotional response from traditional Christian hymns, however there does seem to still be a difference.

Ultimately that emotional response is something received, and in the context of the mass, it does not seem to always be entirely appropriate. So what if that modern music were taken and repurposed? Devotional Reception is an idea for a non-Eucharistic service in which such music can be channelled specifically for the purpose of encouraging those in attendance to be open to receiving not simply directly from the music, but receiving the Holy Spirit himself. To be empowered, to be strengthened and to be enlightened. For many Christians, the response modern praise music evokes can be contemplative and meditative, for all the use of percussion and other similar instruments, in a way that a traditional organ accompanied solely by voice cannot.

That skips forward a bit to the reception, but what of the devotion? Due to the sometimes vague language of modern praise, a time of teaching would be needed as well. A time to explore concepts particularly relating to the Holy Spirit which might otherwise only receive the briefest of attention around Pentecost. It is an opportunity to orient hearts and minds towards the Holy Spirit before that reception begins.

Finally, one of the major works of the Holy Spirit is in healing. While many in North America have never had the awesome wonder of experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit in this way, it seems the works of the Spirit are far more common in parts of the world where people feel a much stronger need to rely not upon themselves or the conveniences of their society, but on God. A time of prayer would then be appropriate. Just as the people may receive something of a feeling of the presence through praise music, they can receive that more sacramental grace through the laying on of hands in prayer, as Scripture commands us. It is a time in which there can be far greater empowering through the Spirit.

Taken together, these three streams of worship offer opportunity for constant turning to God in praise and offering, and receiving from God, in the form of revelation and grace. As orthodox Christians, it should be our earnest desire to see some form of normative and regular worship of the Holy Spirit and reception from the Spirit as a part of our regular worship of God.

On God the Mother

The First Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the strength of all them that put their trust in thee: Mercifully accept our prayers; and because through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping of thy commandments we may please thee both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

It is both topical and old news that people within the Anglican Communion are working towards adoption of a view of God as Mother. The most recent news comes from a report that fresh on the heels of approving the ordination of female bishops, female clergy are pushing for a formal review of the church’s liturgies to refer to God as mother and using feminine pronouns. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the various national working groups reviewing liturgical resources and our hymn book have long used the term “inclusiveness” to mean using gender neutral and feminine terms to refer to God. There are many reasons presented for this, including that presenting God as Father and using masculine pronouns perpetuates a patriarchal view of society and oppresses women, and that women are more capable of understanding God when he is presented as Mother rather than Father. Other arguments are also presented, but ultimately there is a general two point argument presented in support of whatever the goal for presenting God as mother, or using feminine pronouns, happens to be.

First, God is beyond gender. No right-thinking Christian would disagree with this point. God the Father may be referred to in his identity using the masculine pronouns, and with the term Father, but he is not a man or male.

This is quite true. God is beyond gender, but that isn’t always the point. It would be incorrect to refer to God as ‘it’ though it is something that seems to frequently happen in relation to God the Holy Spirit. God is neither a man, nor male, but neither is he a woman or female.

Second, God is presented often using feminine imagery in the Bible, and therefore it is entirely Scriptural to refer to God as Mother. The most compelling verses come from Isaiah 66, where God himself describes himself as a mother. God says, “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you.” Most other verses compare God to a mother in some way, either human or animal. While these verses tend to be used in support of this position, one of the two counter-arguments for the Scriptural supports is found in them.

In Psalm 131. 2, the Psalmist writes to God saying, “But I have calmed and quietened my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me.” There are two points to be made here. It is not entirely clear that the mother in this picture is meant to be God. As the Psalmist says, “I have quietened my soul,” not, “You have quietened my soul.” Even, however, if we accept that in this image it is meant to be God that is the mother, and not the Psalmist, it is mere imagery in a poem that is being used to give weight to the words. It is describing something by simile. God is not a mother, but acting like a mother acts. Similarly in Hosea 13, God says to Israel, “I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast.” In this passage the image of a mother cub is invoked to show how God will guard Israel. Again it is imagery that conveys the meaning and weight of God’s willingness to protect his chosen people. It does not imply God is in fact a mother bear, and more than the passage in Isaiah or the Psalm should be taken to suggest God is a human woman.

Beyond the fact that these passages are merely using imagery, the most important point is that they are describing attributes of God, but not God’s identity. Again, further proof of this is found in the Gospels, where Christ himself, incarnate as a man, uses the same feminine imagery to describe himself in the Gospels. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Here Christ uses the image of a mother hen protecting her chicks to describe how he would protect Israel, but it in no way impacts his identity. A practical example could also serve. How often has a father been described as protecting his children in the same way as a mother bear? Does this impact his identity as a father, or impact the use of the male pronouns for him? Certainly not, so why would a similar image in Hosea cause us to act any differently towards God the Father?

St Justin Martyr once wrote that, “no one can give a name to God, who is too great for words; if anyone dares to say it is possible to do so, he must be suffering from an incurable madness.” Here he makes two points. First, yes God is beyond gender: too great for words. Second, no one can give name to God. It is fine to use imagery or other words to describe God’s nature, but it is different to seek to change his identity by naming him.

One last argument that is sometimes raised, usually in connection with the first idea of God being beyond gender is that the use of masculine pronouns and Jesus’s identification of God as, “our Father,” is simply an entrenchment of patriarchal values of Jesus’s day. He spoke in terms that were acceptable to the male-dominated culture of his day, or the Bible writers merely recorded his words that way because of their own biases.

The first argument is easily disproved by the Gospel of St John. In chapter 6, Christ performs many signs and miracles, and then finishes the chapter preaching at the Synagogue in Capernaum where he tells the assembled Jews that he is the true bread of life and that all must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. This was abhorrent to the Jews, given the Jewish dietary restrictions against the consumption of blood and human flesh. They ask for clarification of what he means by this, thinking there must be some other meaning, but he again says clearly and without any desire to avoid offending their sensibilities maintains that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to receive eternal life. A few verses later, the Gospel records:

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (St Jn 6. 60-63)

It was a hard saying and they were offended. Christ came not to weave himself into Jewish society, but to reveal God’s truth and love. There is no compromising that truth or love.

According to St Justin Martyr, anyone who seeks to redefine God’s identity must be insane. There is another possibility, however, and it is that they simply are not yet ready to submit to God. Rather than transforming ourselves to conform to God, we seek to transform God to conform to our expectations of him, or in this case her, and in doing so, we replace God with ourselves.

Christ came into the world to save sinners, to reconcile us to God, not to allow us to transform God to be more like ourselves.

Upon hearing Christ’s difficult and troubling words, his disciples asked, “who can listen to it?” The answer must be all those who wish truly to follow Christ, for as he answers, “the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”