Pages

Monday, September 27, 2010

Anglican Reformation Dissonance...

Yes, at present, I consider myself a reformed Christian of the Anglican persuasion, although I find little evidence of any reformed identification and understanding in any but the smallest outposts of Anglicanism.

It is a rather dismal reality for one who, later in life, came to the modern incarnation of the church of Thomas Cranmer only to find what one might label as a "truth-in-advertising" problem.  The clear teaching and nature of the Book of Common Prayer (especially 1662) and The Thirty-Nine Articles are (and the position of the 16th century English reformers was) reformed and small 'c' catholic.  Yet all too many Anglicans today recoil uncomfortably at the words reformed, Evangelical, and Protestant while embracing a more or less pre-Reformation understanding of catholicity.  A bit of historical dissonance?

For these Anglicans it’s as if the Reformation never really happened in England except for the throwing off some of the outward trappings of Rome, the papacy, and many of its medieval innovations.  It’s a view of the 16th century religious upheaval as one of purely negative renovations that fails to embrace the positive and necessary historical recovery of justification through faith alone in Christ alone by God’s grace alone and the ultimate authority of Scripture.  It’s a position that blanches at the idea that there was any substantial commonality between the Church of England reformation doctrines and that of the Continental reformers.  And it is for these reasons that there’s little to be heard of the proclamation of the glorious good news of God’s gracious salvation of man - the justification of the ungodly by faith alone in Christ - in the homilies and teachings from Anglican pulpits in the United States.  Michael Horton is right on the money when he says that today’s Christian church needs a modern reformation.  It is certainly the case for the Anglican tradition. And I have to think that Thomas Cranmer would agree.

25 comments:

  1. To the call for a modern reformation, I say Amen; but it needs to be more than just recovery of a position, but also top-down enforcement of that position, backed up by effective church discipline.

    That is the biggest weakness today: that despite all the clear words of the prayer book, the homilies and even the canon - the church is both unmotivated and powerless to enforce any of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Vincent,

    If you mean by top-down enforcement a required subscription by clergy to the Articles or a new confession as Gerald Bray recommends, then I say Amen. The Church can hold clergy to "sound doctrine" from which flows everything else. I kind of feel like it's a pipe dream at this point... sigh.

    The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God’s faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone (Ephesians 2.20). And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known. Pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ’s holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith. Homily 28 (On the Holy Spirit)

    Thanks for your thoughts on this. May God in His sovereign will bring life to dead bones.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Jack,

    My only quibble with this is how 'reformed' can be a sponge word. I think maybe four more dimensions need to be added:

    1. Recapture the term "Protestant" as those churches whose confessions were backed by christian princes and otherwise constructively partook in the concilarism of 1530-50's. A true protestant church must be confessional, and it must be in dialogue with the Augsburg standard. This would realign the WCF on the 'fringe', but elevate the Scottish 1560 and perhaps early swiss. That would be "original" protestant in the strict sense. And, in these days of malaise, a little strictness isn't going to hurt. The Augsburg (even the altered ones) are really water wands.

    2. The other criteria would be to prioritize standards with royal seal against idosyncratic divines. For instance, the Homilies have far more authority than isolated writings of both Cartwright and Andrewes. This is one way to dismiss sectarians, be they catholic or puritan. Anglicans forget the Crown, not Canterbury, was the supreme Godparent if not militant head of the English Church. We need to give due respect according to our original constitution, and where we deviate is due to 'local circumstance' not essential dogma. Free churches are by expediency, and not the norm for true protestant, northern catholic christianity, of which we have our first loyalty amongst visible, catholic churches.
    At Anglican Rose I finally have posted most formulas that possess royal seal. I can't say how important prefaces are in summing ecclesiastical intent. While certain forms and orders have been superseded, the prefaces ought to be collated and carried forward.

    3. return to prayer book conformity-- namely, treating morning prayer, the litany, and communion as one sunday service, followed by a double duty of evening prayer and weekly catechism. Follow either the 1566 advertisements or English-use ornaments. Resources need to be also given to families for home instruction/prayer. This is a major area where clergy slip on.

    4. Finally, discipline means regular episcopal visitations w/ vestries working with archdeacons to report abuses. Follow up w/ actual trials.

    ReplyDelete
  4. cont'd
    At Anglican Rose I finally have posted most formulas that possess royal seal. Amongst the list are those that perhaps add 'context'. For example, I can't say how important prefaces are in summing ecclesiastical intent. While certain forms and orders have been superseded, the prefaces ought to be collated and carried forward, bound together, etc..

    3. return to prayer book conformity-- namely, treating morning prayer, the litany, and communion as a single sunday service, followed by a double duty of evening prayer and weekly catechism. Follow either the 1566 advertisements or limited English-use ornament rubric. Resources need to be also given to families for home instruction/prayer. This is a major area where clergy too often ignore.

    4. Finally, discipline means regular episcopal visitations w/ vestries working alongside archdeacons to report abuses. Follow up w/ actual trials and defrocks for those who'd rather be in a presbyterian, EO, or RC church.

    ReplyDelete
  5. EVB-PB? Restore the HE-Bible for domestic use and Bishop's for parish! no.. I'm serious. Keep up the good work, Jack.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Charles, Elaborate on...

    "EVB-PB? Restore the HE-Bible for domestic use and Bishop's for parish! no.. I'm serious."

    I'm not sure what you're referring to.

    -thick as a brick... ;-)
    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  7. Charles,

    Recapture the term "Protestant" as those churches whose confessions were backed by christian princes and otherwise constructively partook in the concilarism of 1530-50's. A true protestant church must be confessional, and it must be in dialogue with the Augsburg standard. This would realign the WCF on the 'fringe', but elevate the Scottish 1560 and perhaps early swiss.

    Confessional, yes indeed. I have concerns about labeling the WCF as "fringe" on any basis other than an appeal to Scripture... the same for any confession. I really don't see the importance of the "backing of princes" or limiting valid confessions to only those that have a connection to the 1530-1550 time period. God being no respecter of persons seems an apt point. The WCF is not the Anglican confession, but by in large it supports and amplifies the 39 Articles.

    See this article:
    http://39articles.com/samples/001-meredith-39articles-WCF.htm

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  8. Charles,

    "prioritize standards with royal seal... "

    I really don't see that as a reliable measure. To often decisions were taken by monarchs in the 1500's for political considerations at the expense of Scriptural considerations. King Henry for sure, and I think that can fairly be ascribed to Queen E. on a few occasions in order to maintain her authority and "keep peace" in the realm. The Lambeth Articles decision is an example, see:

    http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/LambethArticles.htm

    The State/Church connection is problematic in my read of things. I think it safer to use the Articles themselves as a guide -

    VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
    Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation...

    VIII. Of the Three Creeds.
    The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello Jack,

    It all depends if you want to use the word 'protestant' in its true sense. The word has been so misused, it really needs clarification. The term actually refers to those princes who petitioned Charles V in 1527 at Speyer w/ a document called the "protestia". Thus, to be a protestant, one would have to agree with those principles therein. Jack, this is just being a good 'confessionalist'. At the very least, true protestantism is synonymous with the magisterial reformation. This involves a number of things, foremost is the idea of a national or established church. Now, I respect the Free Church position, but if taken normative, it's outside Protestantism plain and simple.

    Another way to think about it is though every protestant is evangelical, not all evangelicals are protestants. Calling a Reformed Baptist 'protestant' is like calling a Mormon or Roman Catholic 'evangelical'. You can do it, but it's not a correct use of the term, and, if you care about history, it's misleading.

    Amongst true Protestants we have some divisions which involve certain articles that the Germans vs. Swiss would contend are 'adiaphora' not doctrine. Amongst which, classical Anglicans consider, say, episcopacy, liturgy, and the christian calendar to be things indifferent, retained for edification, etc.. In contrast, your WCF-subscribing Presbyterian would say these same things are 'idolatry', Papism, vain worship God will not accept, etc.. In otherwords, they are basically telling you are a heretic.

    That's not much ground for unity, in my mind, and it's because these WCF-presbyterians are really borderline anabaptists. James I tried to correct them, bringing them closer to protestantism (reformed catholicism) by assigning them superintendents and a liturgy (so they might share minimal commonality with Anglicans), but their closet anabaptism prevented this wholesome reform. So, I have no problem calling them out on this, especially if they are the 'covenanter' type who believe the national oath rendered to church and crown in 1638 still holds. They need to live up to their self-professed convictions.

    Lastly, Anglicanism is in serious trouble (--duh). In order to restore discipline, we have to have standards. I don't know why we're going to remake standards when we have original ones which are far superior to anything "clown" neo-evangelicals could write today. The problem is when you go back to Tudor and especially Stuart eras, AC and Puritans will start dredging up basically irrelevant and abstract quotes from divines like Lancelot Andrewes, or (in the case of Puritans), say, Whitgift. Almost any church party can do this, and when they do, you don't know if Anglicanism is really 'broad', 'high', or 'low'. It creates utter confusion.

    cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  10. But all of this is really hog-wash because it ignores how Anglican common order was established. It's actually very simple. The most authoritative documents are those enjoying royal assent. The fact some articles might be in alleged scriptural error (of course Puritans will claim this, while AC will claim a break from Creed), doesn't change the hierarchic authority of the standards. Nor does it change the manner we ought to dispute them, not leaving the alteration of ceremonies, for instance, to private judgement (art. 34). In matters of faith, the church remains the 'keeper of holy writ' and has "authority in controversies of faith" (art.19). The Anglican homily on obedience should also be quoted.

    So, I agree, the church must submit to scripture, for Christ glory, but there is an important process by which this happens, and anabaptist-fanatics are quick to pay violence to it. Believe me, Jack, royal assent solves a lot of problems, but if we think it faulty and the Westminster Assembly superior, then we have to ask why we are still Anglicans? I personally believe WCF was a step away from true Protestantism, and while 'fringe' might be a strong word, WCF can't even cast a shadow to the Augsburg (and its alterations) within the larger circle of magisterial churches. WCF is not that great, and it should not be excused for its own violence to scripture, unlike the 39 articles and Augsburg confessions.

    BTW. the "he-bible" was the first KJV which used federalist, patriarchal language, substituting "he" for "she" in the account of Genesis. Inside the KJV 1611 is a list of criteria for the authorized version. If a bible doesn't conform to these criteria, they shouldn't be used. I'm not sure where the ESV fits, but is probably a more politically correct, less reformed catholic bible than KJV.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Charles,

    " but if we think it faulty and the Westminster Assembly superior, then we have to ask why we are still Anglicans?"

    Good question.

    "WCF can't even cast a shadow to the Augsburg (and its alterations) within the larger circle of magisterial churches. WCF is not that great, and it should not be excused for its own violence to scripture, unlike the 39 articles and Augsburg confessions."

    Here, I wonder if you may be showing a personal animus to the WCF (not saying you are), possibly born of your Presb. church experience. The word "fringe" and now the phrases "borderline anabaptists" and "its own violence to scripture" just don't hold up, not only in my view but also that of many theologians (Lutheran and Anglican) who see a kindred spirit (though with various distinctions) connecting the various reformed confessions, of which the 39 is one, and Lutheran confessions.

    If there is to be a renewal of Reformational Anglicanism, I think it will come as embraces its reformed heritage. Though churches of the WFC would not say Anglicanism is "reformed", strictly speaking, it nonetheless fits into that category (a consensus opinion) more than RC, Orthodox, or Lutheran. And within that reformed camp it holds its own unique place.

    Btw...
    Lately, I have been partial to the American Standard Version.

    I appreciated your heart and scholarship very much.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Jack,

    There's actually much I admire about Presbyterianism. However, the RPW is a deal breaker. It's not only a sore thumb with respect to the prayer book and 39 articles, but it abuses and is extremely contrary to scripture. Those who hold to it would bind our conscious, abrogating Anglican settled worship altogether. When comparing confessions, our is consequently much closer to the (altered) Augsburg.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Charles,

    I think you make my point. Although I think you may be misunderstanding the RPW to a degree, even if not, it by no means is a basis on which to assign the entire WCF the descriptions you give it. And in no way am I saying a restored Anglicanism should adopt the WCF as its confession. One can fairly describe the '39' as moderate Calvinism due to its soteriology and its non-embracing of the RPW. Yet it is interesting that the BCP was the only legal form of worship for the church for many years in England... what could be called a definite regulation of worship.

    The '39' may indeed by closer to the Augsburg. It isn't a significant issue to my way of thinking.

    By the way, the RWP is misunderstood and mis-taught in many reformed circles. T. David Gordon has written something recently on it that is quite helpful. I'll try and find a link online.

    best to you,
    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  14. Keep in mind Puritans were rather consistent in their complaints regarding the prayer book. From 1562& 1571 parliamentary bills, to the Admonitions of the 1580's, the 1604 Millennial Petition, and the Savoy Conference, Puritan demands remained the same and might be summed as measuring all liturgy against Calvin's Forms of Prayer. Nor does the 1552 escape this censor, particularly if we recall the controversy in Frankfurt between Cox and Knox-- Knox, of course, favoring the Geneva order. All these differences were due to RPW, namely perceived second commandment injunctions.

    How damaging this is to common prayer is telling at Savoy where Baxter wants the divine liturgy to have no 'imposition' so to exclude the extemporaneous prayer; and that "it may be left to the discretion of the minister to omit part of it (the fixed liturgy) as occasion may require".

    The Anglican bishops responded, "This makes the Liturgy void". When one reads the 1661 Exceptions, the only conclusion is Baxter describes the Geneva forms, and, as Cosin warns, this would nullify fixed or common prayer.

    RPW means this:
    1. We must do what God commands (ok. Anglicans and Reformed both agree!)
    BUT
    2. What is not commanded (unless circumstantial)cannot be done in public worship.

    Here (#2) we fundamentally disagree. RPW is the reason why the sign of the cross, for example, was protested in baptism. Also, kneeling at communion. Also, vestments. Also, fixed prayer. Also, calendar days, etc.. It really is an endless list, and this is why James I so ridiculed Puritans at the Hampton Court. RPW is not even a biblical doctrine! Instead, it's a gross misreading and twisting of scripture, and this is why I downgrade WCF and that least that branch coming from the
    French confession... Bad exegesis!

    OK. Jack, I've harped on this enough. Just know there are important differences between Anglicans and Reformed. We have a common heritage, but it's found at an earlier point, namely the second half of the 16th century around the Augsburg. After that divergences intensify. Thanks Jack. Looking forward to Gordon's article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello Charles,

    Here are two download links for reviews by T.David Gordon on 2 books on the RPW by Gore and one by Frame. I find Gordon take very helpful. By the way, he worships at an Anglican church.

    https://files.me.com/millbj/t80n53
    https://files.me.com/millbj/pyyhkg

    I think you have this wrong, and it is the source of seeing the RPW as an onerous tyrant:

    RPW means this:
    ...
    2. What is not commanded (unless circumstantial)cannot be done in public worship.


    To quote Gordon:
    The Assembly's purpose in framing the doctrine was to declare the limits of church [and at that time, State] power, and thus to protect the liberty of conscience... [and]
    ... the regulative principle of worship... addresses what an individual may do, obliging no one else, as distinguished from what the church officers may require of the assembled saints.


    And in order to understand RPW one must rightly understand the 4 distinctives of element, form, circumstance, and rubric. Only element is restricted to what Scripture affirmatively proscribes.

    As Gordon writes, "... very few of either the friends or the foes of the regulative principle understand it as it was traditionally understood."

    you write, RPW is the reason why the sign of the cross, for example, was protested in baptism. Also, kneeling at communion. Also, vestments. Also, fixed prayer. Also, calendar days, etc..

    They were protested not that they shouldn't be done or included, but that they shouldn't be proscribed by the Church as "must be done." What would protect the Lord's people from the Church proscribing that in worship all must fall prostrate when the bread and cup are consecrated? Or if it was required that all should say the Hail Mary?

    Any individual may do these things in that they are not forbidden by Scripture, but the Church shouldn't be able to insist that God's people must do something (i.e. include an element) that isn't taught as necessary and true to worship in Scripture. So the RPW wouldn't disallow the kneeling at communion, nor the sign of the cross, nor vestments, nor anything else I can think of in the BCP (1662, maybe 1928). Only that the Church cannot require those things which are not elements to be done.

    blessing bro...
    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Jack,

    I will try to write something on this on my blog soon. I can think of two examples-- the debate between Ridley and Hooper as well as the Savoy Conference. This point of "not being commanded to do something otherwise indifferent" would leave adiaphora to the judgement of private opinion. Ridley and the bishops at Savoy pointed this out and insisted the bulk of adiaphora be left to the sovereign to decide, i.e., 'true adiaphora' was thus canon law.

    On the reverse side, I could imagine worshipping in a presbyterian church when the bread and wine is distributed in pews while my family and I try to approach the front of the church? Or, everyone praying by sitting while our house kneels? etc. There would naturally be questions of church order. I know in the OPC the elders would have cornered me if, say, I was bowing at the name of Jesus or signing the cross during the benediction. So, I think there are certainly some 'grey areas' which Gordon misses. That said, I agree with Gordon, to an extent, that individual acts of devotion are exempt, for sure, in private worship. But congregational prayer is another question and dimension altogether?

    While I think about it, I am not even sure Anglicanism gives as much freedom to private devotion as Presbyterianism/puritanism might? Last night I was reading the uniformity act 1549, and common worship included private chapels and chantries. Also, Henrician/Edwardian canons prohibited ownership of certain books as well as liturgical utensils in homes. Even bible ownership was considered a privilege given by Crown.

    Perhaps the idea of the 'individual' wasn't a strong as today? These were societies where the headship principle extended to the entire realm, and the average man had about as much freedom as a child under their parent w/ respect to the sovereign of England. Though I believe this federal principle is far more biblical than the modern idea of 'individual', the contra was little free press or thought existed. Certain areas (not all) of private devotion had penalty. Yikes! But try to enforce it...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Charles,

    I'm enjoying our conversation. Thanks for your thoughtful input.

    You wrote,
    On the reverse side, I could imagine worshipping in a presbyterian church when the bread and wine is distributed in pews while my family and I try to approach the front of the church? Or, everyone praying by sitting while our house kneels? etc. There would naturally be questions of church order. I know in the OPC the elders would have cornered me if, say, I was bowing at the name of Jesus or signing the cross during the benediction.

    First, I've no ax to grind in terms of the RPW being adopted by Anglicanism. As you stated, it may be that Anglicans are more restrictive!

    Any way, responding to your above - the point isn't individuals being free to do whatever, rather the form of the Lord's Supper is open to where it is received and whether sitting, standing, or kneeling. How the cup and bread are distributed is not an 'element', thus it is informed by teaching and prudence, not direct command. It would be imprudent for you to go forward to receive the Supper if the church was receiving it in the pews. The Supper is an element and thus should be part of church worship. The point is that a particular local church (say in the OPC) could determine to have everyone come forward (as they do in one particular URCNA church I visited). My understanding is that the OPC 'from on high' would be wrong to forbid that form or circumstance or rubric simply because it is not directly commanded in Scripture. Sitting in the pews is not directly commanded in Scripture. If that were the measure, then we should all be reclining at table! I suppose that the practice could be rejected if determined that it doesn't comport with Scriptural teaching, but that is a case that would have to be proved at a General Assembly, I would think.

    By the way, I think the elders, if they were to rebuke you for the sign of the cross done as you describe, would be violating the RPW not enforcing it.

    I look forward to you next post.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Jack,

    Until then (it might be a while), please consider the unscriptural nature of RPW. If RPW is unscriptural, then why all the protests against the Elizabethan prayer book? Even more, why a civil war? These are consequences many have yet to account for. Furthermore, how can Anglicans ignore RPW in light of the fruit it has born? Do we just let the falsity continue, basically apologizing for it? As said, WCF is not everything it claims to be. People need to take a second look!

    My essay might not be the best. YOu may get more from Steve Schlissel, but please visit the link and fully weigh RPW's proof texts. You will find it misuses scripture and holds no water: http://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/is-the-rpw-extra-scriptural/

    ReplyDelete
  19. Charles,

    Regarding the English Puritan application of RPW visa vis the BCP, there is some historical context that one should taken into account in terms of the actions on both sides. Neither side was without excesses. Though Philip Schaff's history of that period paints a rather unflattering picture of the heavy hand of QE and many of her loyal bishops. That being said, the English Puritan practice of RPW is by no means "the definitive" reformed position.

    Schlissel is really not a good source in my opinion. One, he is a proponent of Federal Vision theology - an system with many substantial doctrinal errors (some would say heresy) which has some in common the faulty New Perspectives on Paul teachings of NT Wright. Secondly, his church denomination is not even part of NAPARC, and his take is critiqued, I think quite effectively by others. I think Schlissel, Frame, Gore to name a few, misunderstand and thus misrepresent RPW. That being said, there are clearer teachers today of RPW (DG Hart, RS Clark, Gordon) who would not make the case that the RPW has always been understood and applied correctly, and thus not the "tyrant" you suppose and certainly disagree with Schlissel's definition of RPW. It is only right that one who criticizes a doctrine accurately represent the doctrine as his opponents define it. -- (for instance the Council of Trent accurately explains the reformed view of justification by faith alone, and then curses it!)

    In the words of T.David Gordon:
    I believe in weekly communion and in corporate prayers of confession, especially but not exclusively those found in the old Book of Common Prayer, followed by scriptural declarations of pardon. I believe it is wise to confess the faith weekly using either the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed; and I think the nonsacramental worship typical of the Puritans has tended to remove mystery from worship, and to make the Reformed tradition more ascetic than aesthetic. Yet none of these differences requires me to repudiate the fundamental principle of both Calvin and the Puritans: that when the Christian assembly gathers in the presence of God, it should approach him only by means of his own appointment.

    Might point in all this is not that Anglicans should adopt it or that if they did it wouldn't change somewhat the church worship (although the changes may have more to do with forms, circumstances, and rubrics), but that PW rightly understood is a reasonable take from Scripture. Certainly, one can argue against it from Scripture, but its basis is not a distortion nor abuse of Scripture.

    OK, I'm done... ready for the next topic and looking forward to your next post.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Jack,

    You've been very patient! But how do you excuse Solemn League and Covenant? It's not just polity spoken about there but principally about reforming worship. The context too has much to do with the 1637 prayer book. When Gordon says, "...but not exclusively those found in the old Book of Common Prayer", he's making no concession to common prayer. Leaving public liturgy to the discretion of the minister renders it a 'variable' not 'fixed' one. That's not common prayer as traditionally understood, but it's the Geneva/Scottish form. We're no longer talking about Anglican tradition! Ironically, Gordon does describe the de facto situation in Anglicanism, namely we do as our hearts desire, following no law. Discipline has broken down, prayers are added, and for the most part 'local option' prevails in both faith and worship. Discipline is the way out, but what Gordon describes is simply not Anglican discipline.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Perhaps modern Presbyterians understand RPW through the influence of (New School) revivalism. Maybe this makes New School presbyterians very different from Calvinists in the 17th/16th centuries. I know PCA worship is informed much more by revivalism than churches like OPC and RPCNA (who are closer to SLC/covenanter tradition). Maybe you and I are talking about different kinds of Presbyterianism, each belonging to another time period. Could that be possible?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The S&C agreement is as much explained by political expediencies as anything. Again, I see the state and church oneness as a main source of the problem in the English church history/reformation forward.

    When Gordon says, "...but not exclusively those found in the old Book of Common Prayer", he's making no concession to common prayer. Leaving public liturgy to the discretion of the minister renders it a 'variable' not 'fixed' one.

    Well of course... Gordon is not Anglican if you mean by "common payer" only those prayers in the BCP. Reformed worship is less proscribed than Anglican's who hold to the BCP liturgy. That being said it is not left to the discretion of the minister (at least in the OPC and URCNA).

    Discipline is the way out, but what Gordon describes is simply not Anglican discipline.

    Gordon, of course, is not making the case for Anglican discipline. But how can Anglicans make any appeal for discipline in liturgy if the standard is "anything not forbidden in Scripture is allowable?" By that standard the BCP becomes just one of many potential options. No longer is there a State to enforce uniformity by threat of force (which is a good thing).

    Maybe you and I are talking about different kinds of Presbyterianism, each belonging to another time period. Could that be possible?

    Yes, I think you're right. Today's Presb. (and Evangelical churches) has been ill-informed by the first and second Great Awakenings and the revivalism of Finney. The Old School Presbs are an anachronism to most today. Yet that old school reflects the Calvin/Genevan tradition much more. Go take a look at Calvin's liturgy. Indeed, OPC and the URCNA better reflect the Reformed faith and practice than PCA.

    Again, I'm not making the case that a restored Anglicanism must adopt the RPW. I'd be happy with clergy being trained to not only "know the gospel" as understood and taught by the likes of Cranmer, Jewell, Luther, and Calvin... but to preach those doctrines every Sunday. If that were to happen, the inherent truths of the gospel would begin to jump out from the BCP liturgy into the hearts and minds of the believers. The 39 Articles would be resurrected from dusty, dead, historical footnotes to a living confession of reformed/catholic faith.

    In conjunction with the above it would be extremely helpful and consistent (and thus necessary IMO) if the BCP liturgy (1662 is best though 1928 is doable) and its rubrics were held to as the only sanctioned order of worship. This would cleanse the Anglican continuing churches of the muddled-ness of semi-Romanish rites and practices that find there way into the Communion and worship simply by "the discretion of the [priest]" who has numerous alternatives, thus rendering worship "'variable' not 'fixed'."

    DG Hart and RS Clark would be worth reading for a good perspective on Reformed theology through the lens of its history (best way to understand it).

    One last thought... the Affirmation of St. Louis is woefully lacking as an organizing confession of faith and practice. And because of that the muddled-ness of above will continue.

    ReplyDelete
  23. One reason I left OPC was because I saw the rule of worship, RPW, to be inconsistent (you noted right off the bat OPC sitting in pews when the Supper was instituted at a table. The church I went to also served 'grape juice only'. After consecration the bread and wine were tossed in the trash, etc.). After reading about the consequences of SLC, I had to question puritan protest. The accusations against the prayer book (at the time I had copies of 1928 and 1559) by puritans were like those living in glass houses throwing stones. I had to admit the BCP was superior, and consequently the SLC had no merit. I also did not like extemporaneous prayer which often incorporated PC and questionable political elements. Not only this but it could be rambling and unfocused. To a lesser extent this was also the case with the communion which was treated more like an ad lib sermon rather than a prayer. This OPC church even went through a period questioning if their prayers were being heard because they weren't prayer with lifted palms per scripture. It was this kind of unnecessary parsing combined with hypocritical inconsistency which gave me real insight to how the bishops must have felt dealing with more unreasonable puritan complaints, characterized by flying accusations of 'papism', every liturgical question revolves around alleged acts of idolatry and blasphemy, while their own worship is totally flawed. This was how it was in OPC.

    For a while we might have been talking past one another. I think recognizing there are two sorts of presbyterian forms of worship helps. Despite my former church being very old school, it contained many revivalist/fundamentalist elements too (such as grape juice). The call for communication often went like this, "any bible-believing christian may partake".. I had to ask what that meant? When I did I also was sure to ask which Chrisians from what denominations could receive, thus gaining insight as to what they thought were reformed churches. The elders included creedo-baptists but excluded Lutherans and Anglicans! I was flabbergasted, especially after having read the Augsburg Apology and BCP...

    That said, my former church, while solidly networked with PCA/RPCNA churches of like mind, had serious problems with Clark and Westminster West. When I finally left, I took the best of the Presbyterian tradition with me.
    There were certainly good things about it, but the hardline, in my opinion, 17th century take on RPW, was not one of them! It was insane and very radical, tearing the garment of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  24. One reason I left OPC was because I saw the rule of worship, RPW, to be inconsistent (you noted right off the bat OPC sitting in pews when the Supper was instituted at a table. The church I went to also served 'grape juice only'. After consecration the bread and wine were tossed in the trash, etc.). After reading about the consequences of SLC, I had to question puritan protest. The accusations against the prayer book (at the time I had copies of 1928 and 1559) by puritans were like those living in glass houses throwing stones. I had to admit the BCP was superior, and consequently the SLC had no merit. I also did not like extemporaneous prayer which often incorporated PC and questionable political elements. Not only this but it could be rambling and unfocused. To a lesser extent this was also the case with the communion which was treated more like an ad lib sermon rather than a prayer. This OPC church even went through a period questioning if their prayers were being heard because they weren't prayer with lifted palms per scripture. It was this kind of unnecessary parsing combined with hypocritical inconsistency which gave me real insight to how the bishops must have felt dealing with more unreasonable puritan complaints, characterized by flying accusations of 'papism', every liturgical question revolves around alleged acts of idolatry and blasphemy, while their own worship is totally flawed. This was how it was in OPC.

    ReplyDelete
  25. For a while we might have been talking past one another. I think recognizing there are two sorts of presbyterian forms of worship helps. Despite my former church being very old school, it contained many revivalist/fundamentalist elements too (such as grape juice). The call for communication often went like this, "any bible-believing christian may partake".. I had to ask what that meant? When I did I also was sure to ask which Chrisians from what denominations could receive, thus gaining insight as to what they thought were reformed churches. The elders included creedo-baptists but excluded Lutherans and Anglicans! I was flabbergasted, especially after having read the Augsburg Apology and BCP...

    That said, my former church, while solidly networked with PCA/RPCNA churches of like mind, had serious problems with Clark and Westminster West. When I finally left, I took the best of the Presbyterian tradition with me.
    There were certainly good things about it, but the hardline, in my opinion, 17th century take on RPW, was not one of them! It was insane and very radical, tearing the garment of Christ.

    ReplyDelete