Tag Archive for 'anglican communion'

Jabez Bryce – Anglican longest-serving bishop dies

Published on February 15, 2010 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: anglican communion, new zealand, pacific.

Archbishop-Jabez-Bryce-Bishop-of-the-Anglican-Diocese-of-Polynesia-from-1975-to-2010.-Rest-in-peace_imagelarge Archbishop Jabez Bryce, the longest-serving bishop in the Anglican Communion, has died aged 75 in Suva, Fiji. Archbishop Jabez was the first Pacific Islander to become an Anglican bishop.

Jabez was born in Vavaʻu, in Tonga, he grew up in Samoa and trained for the priesthood at St John’s College in Auckland, New Zealand. His mother was Tongan, his father had Samoan and Scottish heritage. He became the Bishop of the Diocese of Polynesia in 1975, and Archbishop in 2006. In 2005 three assistant bishops expanded the oversight of his diocese.

In August 2008 Archbishop Jabez was chosen to crown the new Tongan King, His Majesty King George Tupou V. Archbishop Jabez had strong ecumenical drive and passion for interfaith dialogue, working for unity between the various denominations in the Pacific, serving on the Pacific Conference of Churches for many years and was a president of the Pacific region of the World Council of Churches.

A memorial Eucharist was held last night at St. Mary’s in Holy Trinity Cathedral, Auckland, with the Rt. Rev. Winston Halapua, bishop for the Diocese of Polynesia in Aotearoa New Zealand, presiding.

Archbishop David Moxon, who has known Archbishop Jabez for 40 years, said he will always recall the “grace, strength and energy of the man. Bryce leaves so much to value and treasure behind him; and he will be honoured and remembered for a long time as the greatest of the bishops of Polynesia.” Archbishop Brown Turei described Archbishop Jabez as “a prince of the church. A man who was dignified, kindly, who liked things done decently and in order — because that reflected what the church meant to him.”

Archbishop Jabez Bryce is survived by his wife, Tilisi, and two children, Jonathan and Fitaloa. The funeral service will be held at the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Suva on Thursday, Feb. 18 at 10.30 a.m.

Anglican Covenant – strength of weak ties

Published on February 7, 2010 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: Anglican, anglican communion, anglicanism, anglicans, bible, divorce, hope, marriage, ordination, reformation, sola scriptura.

Bible Alone

It continues to intrigue me that those who hold to a Bible-Alone, sola scriptura position regularly continue to clamour in favour of the proposed Anglican Covenant. This more protestant, “reformed” end of the Anglican spectrum on the one hand claims the Bible Alone is totally sufficient for all our Christian needs, that the Bible is totally self-explanatory, and that the Bible does not need to be supplemented by any other documents. Yet on the other hand: these same people feel that Anglicanism cannot survive without the Anglican Covenant. Ie. the Bible alone is not sufficient. Make up your mind people: is the Bible alone sufficient or isn’t it?!

Completing the Reformation

Some pro-Anglican-Covenant people speak about the need to “complete the Reformation”. Certainly, many at the Reformation created confessional denominations increasingly dividing over disagreements over interpretations of their lists of beliefs. The Anglican Covenant will either include everyone currently Anglican (and so will alter nothing, have only delayed discussion about the real issue, and wasted jet-engine fuel). Or it will complete the Reformation’s tendency towards ever-increasing fragmentation by splintering the frail bonds that bind Anglicans together.

The Anglican Communion and the strength of weak ties

Without using theological-babble (or “Rowanspeak”) it is very hard to ascertain what those who are pro-the Covenant concretely want and expect from a “Communion”. Certainly we would hope a communicant anywhere is a communicant everywhere in the Communion. Even that principle has been stretched to breaking with some provinces communicating all the baptised, some needing a rite of “admission to communion” at an age of “understanding”, and some needing episcopal confirmation before receiving communion. I am sure that toddlers from the first option may have difficulty receiving communion in provinces with the last option. Another principle is the mutual recognition of ordination, so that clergy in one province can function as clergy in another province. That principle has long been broken with women clergy, and male clergy ordained by women bishops, from one province unable to function as clergy in other provinces. Attitudes to divorce and remarriage vary from province to province, affecting communicant status and acceptability of remarried clergy. All this will not change one iota should the Anglican Covenant be accepted.

Sociologist Mark Granovetter, in the highly influential 1973 paper on social networking “The Strength of Weak Ties”, argues our close friends will be quite similar to us. Acquaintances differ more from us and will have their own networks of close friends. We have strong ties to our friends, and weak ties to acquaintances. Granovetter argues persuasively for the value of having both strong and weak ties – they have different functions, enhancing both our flourishing and theirs.

Strong ties (friends) are like an Anglican province. Weak ties (acquaintances) are like our inter-provincial ties across the Anglican Communion. Many who are pro-Covenant appear unable to articulate a difference between a diocese, a province, and a communion – these appear to be seeking that the communion function essentially in the way that most of us understand a diocese to function (or possibly a province).

A previous post: the Anglican Covenant will not do what it is meant to do

A helpful site for deeper reflection is the World Anglicanism Forum run by Bruce Kaye, an Anglican theologian, Foundation editor of the Journal of Anglican Studies. Currently a Visiting Research Fellow in History at the University of New South Wales and a Professorial Associate in Theology at Charles Sturt University.

Anglican Covenant – partly used

Published on December 22, 2009 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: anglican church of canada, anglican communion, archbishop of canterbury, common prayer, divorce, episcopal church, eucharist, victoria matthews.

Go forward in your time machine to a few years from now and imagine seeing on eBay or Trade Me: “For Sale, one partly used Anglican Covenant – owner hoping to recoup at least some of the significant amount of money and hope invested in it.”

The first drafts of the covenant were so un-Anglican the covenant did not even mention the unifying significance of common prayer in Anglicanism. I placed a submission, as did other visitors to this site. What developed was certainly an improvement in that regard. However, in the language of the New Zealand Consumer Guarantees Act the proposed “covenant” is not “fit for the purpose” and will not “do what it is meant to do.”

The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion has just released the revised text of section 4 of the proposed Anglican covenant. This is available here (left hand side last draft, right hand side current draft). A commentary from the working group that did the revision is available here. Lionel Deimel provides a possibly easier-to-follow version of the changes.

God’s platypus

God created a platypus denomination that experts have never believed can actually be a living denomination. It has bumbled on. In the last five or so decades, the communion has stumbled on fine in an “impaired” manner with women priests (and even bishops), differences about divorce, and local revisions of liturgy, even local alteration to eucharistic presidency. Now, because of disagreements over human sexuality, rather than facing that issue in the same manner as with the previous ones, there is the call to alter the whole basis of our structure. Let us be honest about this. The issue is gays. Whilst our diocese has passed a motion affirming the covenant in principle, the called for a listening process to gays has not even begun. Some people are not in a hurry to face the issue: gender and sex issues have been dealt with by Anglicanism (either overtly or covertly) in only one direction (consistently: liberalisation) – except (possibly) for gays (and even there – has any formal policy been reversed and headed back towards a more “conservative” position?). In the rising tide of these issues the “Anglican Covenant” stands as a rake trying to hold it back.

The covenant in NZ

Locally, NZ Anglicans are abysmally ill-and-uninformed (we colonials struggle with our smoke-signals under new environment-friendly protocols). A pro-covenant NZ bishop published an article in which our diocesan bishop, Victoria Matthews, was said to be one of the covenant drafters/revisers. She is not. In our numerically tiny province such comments carry disproportionate weight. He claimed that diocese would sign up to the covenant rather than provinces. He was unaware that ACC had met and sought revision of section 4.

The covenant requires recognition of four instruments of communion (and possibly the newly created “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” – a fifth?) Out of these, currently our NZ Anglican church only canonically recognises the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am no canon lawyer (in fact does NZ have any canon lawyers? We generally have so few canons – if you smile nicely in our province you can mostly get away with anything you like) but if we need to recognise the other three (or four) that requires two meetings of General Synod and a year “lying on the table for anyone to challenge” – then after that we might proceed to accept the covenant. The Church of Nigeria, of course, recently removed all references to the Archbishop of Canterbury from its constitution – so that will be a fascinating province to watch in its discussion about the covenant.

Go back in your time machine, say fifty years ago, and get everyone then to sign up to this “covenant”. Returning to the 21st century, probably there is now no three-tikanga Anglican church in NZ (remember the first ever motion by the Primates Meeting was trying to prevent that development – you don’t remember? Was the General Synod voting on three tikanga even informed of the Primates’ motion? – ah, the smoke signals problem again)? With a covenant in place over the last five decades or so, there probably also would now be no women priests or bishops (only five of the 44 member churches of the Anglican Communion actually have women bishops currently); probably no communion to infants prior to confirmation; probably no marriage of divorcees (what is it with two-or-three-times-married Anglicans loudly condemning gay lifelong commitment?); probably no divorced-and-remarried bishops (maybe not even so for other clergy, see 1 Timothy 3:2); in NZ (as well as not having the three tikanga structure of which we are so proud) probably not having two co-bishops running one diocese.

The marriage covenant, blessings, and pre-nups

Covenant sounds innocent enough – it’s a biblical word and those pro-covenant have traded on its biblical resonances (”covenant” is biblical therefore this covenant is biblical). But Anglicans have devoted little energy to the understanding of that most common of covenants, marriage (the Henry VIII factor?) [For example the CofE distinction between a service in which the Archbishop of Canterbury blessed Charles and Camilla after they took their marriage vows, and ummm… a service in which the Archbishop of Canterbury would have blessed Charles and Camilla after they would have taken their marriage vows]. It is the poverty of reflection on marriage and blessings that has landed us in this current predicament. There has been little reflection on the validity or otherwise of the marriage covenant if a couple makes a prenuptial agreement. Section 4 of this Anglican Covenant is a prenuptial agreement.

To sign or not to sign – concretely

In part covenant discussions are thin because of the poor reflection not just about the theory and theology of communion – but of its ramifications in actual practice.

Imagine, for a moment, if the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia don’t sign the covenant. Very little changes. It is possible that these provinces lose voting rights in the non-binding meetings of the communion. I suspect they would still be present “as observers” and probably have speaking rights. Anglicans will still be able to receive communion in these churches, clergy will still be able to serve in these churches, Kiwi and North American clergy will still be able to serve in England under the Colonial Clergy Act. Kiwis will still be able to elect Canadian bishops.

What about if everyone does sign? Very little changes in terms of the hoped for unity of the Communion. If all do sign, my bishop, Victoria Matthews, still cannot act as a bishop in England, nor even read the bible aloud in the presence of men in some churches in our neighbouring province. Those she has ordained are not accepted as clergy in many places. Impaired communion is as impaired as ever. It will not alter the diversity (disunity?) within a province and diocese – where one parish uses lectionary and wears vestments, and a neighbouring parish defies using lectionary, liturgy, and only wears suits; where one parish denies the literal virgin birth, and a neighbouring parish requires its belief as core doctrine. The proposed “covenant” is not “fit for the purpose” and will not do what so many of its advocates are convinced it is meant to do.

Some of the covenant’s strongest advocates will be sorely disappointed that the final version has removed the previous draft’s option of allowing ACNA and other members of the “continuing Anglican” alphabet soup and episcopoi vagantes groups an opportunity of signing up and fast-tracking acceptance into the Anglican Communion. The final draft is clear – only current member provinces of the Anglican Communion will be offered the covenant to sign. If you want to join the Anglican Communion – there’s already a process in place to do that.

Handing over your sovereignty

The previous draft twice had “[signing up to the covenant] does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” One of those has been removed in the final covenant. Certainly within post-colonialist Aotearoa-New Zealand Anglicanism there will need to be much convincing whether or not signing up to the covenant represents submission to some sort of body beyond our shores. One thing is certain: NZ Maori will not sign up to anything that hands over their tino rangatiratanga, their sovereignty over their own life. And within our constitutional arrangements, they hold veto over our corporate life.

Does it matter? – ultimately

Ultimately, of course, church, the gospel, and life are not about denominational boundaries. Actual unity and disunity lie at right angles to the denominational lines that occupy some people so intensely. A covenant or no covenant will make no difference to climate change issues, world poverty, wars, depression, recession, the search for meaning, the journey to holiness, relationship problems, unemployment, ill health,…

The Anglican Church of Or

Published on December 3, 2009 in liturgy. 3 Comments Tags: Anglican, anglican communion, collect, common prayer, eucharistic prayers, lectionary, new zealand.

lectionary2010

I have just purchased the Lectionary for the 2010 Church Year of The Anglican Church in Aotearoa (comma) New Zealand (no “Oxford/Harvard comma“) and Polynesia, better known as “The Anglican Church of Or”. (With a carefully thought-through official title one would think similar great care would be taken in the common prayer that holds it together as an Anglican province, but…)

This Lectionary states, “The colours suggested for each day… are not mandatory but reflect common practice in most parishes.” (page 4). So let’s take the example in the image above for Sunday November 14. The colour for the day is Green, or… ummm… Red, or…. White, or… ummm… Violet. The day before can be Green or Red. And the day before that can be Green or white or Red. Unless of course you wanted to use Violet on that day – remember colours are not mandatory. (You are starting to see why it is called the Anglican Church of Or). Page 104 expands the options (in case you don’t think there are enough) so that on our example of November 14 you might also use “Best” or Gold or Yellow or Blue or “Lenten colour” or unbleached linen, or a deep blood red.

Some senior clergy I’ve spoken to have suggested that Gw in their day meant a Green altar frontal but a white stole! That’s fine for Green and white, even Green and violet might go together, but what happens when the colours clash Yuck! And what does it mean a few days earlier November 8 where it is Gr[R]? … that must mean: Green or red or… ummmm… ummmm… Red! Of course – it’s obvious.

One suggestion: Why didn’t they save ink and just write the colour you shouldn’t use? Of course: far too prescriptive (you should never use the word should)!

What do we call that Sunday? (Let’s just stay with the English-language options currently) 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, or Proper 28, or 25th Sunday after Pentecost, or 2nd Sunday before Advent, or Remembrance Sunday, or the Feast of Christ in All Creation (unless, of course, you want to call it something else).

Now to the readings: Let’s stay with November 14 as our example. I count 18 readings you can choose from suggested for a morning service. Woops – I forgot to count the ones for the Feast of Christ in All Creation which is an option. The readings are not provided in the Lectionary (why not?!) For those you have to go to the church’s General Synod Website. The readings are provided under “C” as Wisdom 13:1-9 Or Isaiah 45:9-12 Romans 8:18-25 Or Colossians 1:15-20 John 1:1-5,10-14,18 Or Mark 16:14-20. OK – that brings the total number of suggested readings to choose from for the morning service to 24. This is a competition: if you can find more than 24 readings for any part of the day in the lectionary – please point that out in the comments. Don’t forget – in NZ if you don’t like the suggestion – you can choose your own.

This, remember is a relatively tiny province. There will probably be around 30,000 people in church on the Sunday using those readings. The second competition question is: is there any other province which has so much choice??!! My guess is that any province of any reasonable size is kept unified with a sense of common prayer by having quite a limited number of options. Most fix the readings, the colour, the collect, and give a choice of a few Eucharistic Prayers. In New Zealand you can choose the collect from a wide variety of sources (someone in the comments might like to give the number of collects provided on NZ’s digital Living Liturgy). And if you don’t like the collects provided, you can find another or produce your own.

As to Eucharistic Prayers – I have lost count how many Eucharistic Prayers NZ’s General Synod has authorised. It must be around a dozen. And if you don’t like any of those – General Synod has authorised that you can use any Eucharistic Prayer authorised anywhere in the Anglican Communion – anyone got a guess of the number (please add it in the comments)? Maybe a couple of hundred? And if you don’t like any of those you can write your own using any of the frameworks authorised anywhere in the Anglican Communion (I can think of three). And if you don’t like that, just use a reading from 1 Cor 11:23ff – we all know communities that do this and are they ever called to account?

(I have not taken into account that for the 2009 Church Year the lectionary provided online was significantly different to the hard-copy version, with different readings and different titles for Sundays – we await this year’s online version to see if even more options are provided).

30,000 in church that Sunday; at least 30,000 different combinations possible. Common Prayer?

NZ Prayer Book 20 years on

Published on November 25, 2009 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: anglican communion, common prayer, new zealand, prayer book.

Sunday November 29 is the 20th anniversary of the launch of A New Zealand Prayer Book/He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa (NZPB/HKMA).
I would be interested in knowing how many copies have been sold in New Zealand?
How many copies have been sold overseas?
How many copies were bought and are now sitting at the back of churches on shelves and seldom brought out, or in pews and seldom used? How many are using this book as the standard for worship?
There is a lot of enthusiasm amongst some people about this Prayer Book – but is it the prayer book as a whole – or certain sections of it that people find exhilarating? My own suspicion is that there is a small collection of nuggets within the book that people treasure and enthuse about. This post is going to quickly hover over the contents and make brief comments and ask some questions.

The Calendar
The Church Year p 4-6 has changed significant shape since 1989 (the date of publication)
a lot of the regulations p 7-13 have been altered since 1989
The Calendar p 14-25 the feasts have been added to, altered, and moved

Liturgies of the Word
Morning and Evening Worship p 29-53 my guess would be that this service is little used as it stands
Daily Services p 54-103 The Common Life Liturgical Commission provided an alternative to this with Celebrating Common Prayer (NZ). Clergy here have in these last 2 decades no longer been required to pray the office. In a denomination with previously a strong dynamic that all pray the office daily, I would be fascinated to know how many of our 100,000 faithful Anglicans use this office provided here. It should not be that difficult for that to be surveyed. I suspect it would be a very small proportion.
Daily Devotions p 104-137 I suspect these are popular before a meeting, etc. They are part of what people find and appreciate as “different” in this book.
Midday Prayer p 147 – 166 I suspect as with the Daily Devotions
Night Prayer p 167 – 186 I suspect one of the most popular services in the book
Family Prayer p 187 – 191 Had you noticed it?

Psalms for Worship p 195 – 373 Controversial because of the changes to “Israel” and “Zion”, and the removal of the imprecatory material. Inclusive, yet still translates YHWH as Lord. My guess would be – widely used.

Liturgy of Baptism and the Laying on of Hands for Confirmation and Renewal p 383 – 399
My guess would be that local variants on the baptism rite exist in a majority of places. The confirmation service is probably mostly used untouched.

Liturgies of the Eucharist p 404 – 510
General Synod has allowed so many variations to these texts in the last twenty years there will be a lot of local variation. Certainly the NZ Anglican Church is not held together by a well-known, well-loved set of eucharistic texts. In any gathering of committed Anglicans beyond a regular parish community, it would not be possible to celebrate the Eucharist without giving people the texts in their hands (or on a screen). Only a very, very small number of our 100,000 would be able to give the response to “The peace of God be with you all.”
A Form for Ordering the Eucharist p 511-514 has been supplemented by General Synod with another formulary An Alternative Form For Ordering the Eucharist
A Service of the Word with Holy Communion p518-520. My guess: rarely used.
Themes for the Church’s Year p 522-524 Not used
Seasonal Sentences Prayers and Blessings for use after Communion p 525-545 Used by half?

Sentences Prayers and Readings for the Church’s Year p550-690 Mostly not used. Recently replaced by a digital resource.
Three Year Series p 691-723 Not used

Holy Communion p 729-737 Used by half?
Ministry of Healing p 738-748 drawn from as a resource?
Reconciliation of a Penitent p 750 – 753 used rarely?
Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child p 754-761 used by half?
Blessing of a Home p 762-775 used by some, including those with a sense of humour
Marriage Liturgies p 780 – 808 probably used as a primary resource. Second Form rarely used.

Funeral Liturgies p 811- 884 used as a resource

Ordination Liturgies p 887-924 often used as is; adapted as a resource for Total Ministry/Locally Shared Ministry

Catechism p 926-938 I would be interested to know
Table p 939 – 941 No longer valid

This is a completely unscientific summary. Have you been doing the Maths as we’ve gone along – is that about 8% of the text is being regularly used and is unchanged by General Synod or its commissions etc. in the last twenty years?

What are some of the best parts of NZPB/HKMA? We are a very small church (probably about the size of a large CofE diocese) if you really had a passion about something you could probably have gotten it into the Prayer Book.
The language is inclusive (horizontally and vertically) – though the Commission’s “Out of love for the world God gave the only Son…” was even beyond General Synod’s pale, and rather than leave it to “A sentence from scripture may be read” they insisted on having “God so love the world that he gave…” Lord is still Lord – and there’s lots of Lords.
There is quite a bit of complementary imagery. Probably most famously is Jim Cotter’s paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer “Eternal Spirit, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver,…” although even the Commission couldn’t cope with Cotter’s original “Love-maker”.
There’s an increased sense of creation and a focus on the environment. Some of that was patched on later, of course. The “St Anne Liturgy”, otherwise known as the “Northland Rite” or “Pink 3″ until 1983 had language like, “Therefore, Lord of glory,…” when it became Thanksgiving for Creation and Redemption there was a find-and-replace to language such as “Therefore, God of all creation…”
Maori has an appropriately significant place. Other Pacific Island languages are included. There is indigenous artwork included.
There is a very healthy theology of ordination, of the vocation of the laity.

What are some of the worst parts of NZPB/HKMA? We are a very small church (probably about the size of a large CofE diocese) if you really had a passion about something you could probably have gotten it into the Prayer Book.
Basic liturgical principles such as consistent responses to similar cues so that they can be learnt by heart were lost.
No calls were made to abandon material someone had worked so hard on (eg. the Two Year Lectionary).
Basic liturgical principles such as being able to watch during action – rather than needing one’s head in the book – were neglected.
Little attention was given to appropriate gestures that might fit with the newly created texts.
The baptism (confirmation) rite must take the international Anglican fail prize.
There is an extremely weak theology of the Trinity.
Essentially this was a text dropped into the life of the church – there is no commentary, little formation or training accompanied its introduction.
The digital text and the print films were lost, hence the Harper Collins edition of 1997 must count as one of the Anglican Communion’s ugliest prayer books, as it is essentially a bound black-and-white photocopy.
This was part of the New Zealand church losing possession of the full copyright of the text and why unlike other Anglican provinces, it cannot place the text online – much to the chagrin of many readers here.

This site already has much on this Prayer Book. I wrote a series using the model of language to illustrate liturgy – this has
Kiwi Anglican liturgy history part 1 (= liturgy as language 2)
Kiwi Anglican liturgy history part 2 (= liturgy as language 3)
as well as liturgy as language 1; liturgy as language 4; liturgy as language 5

Celebrating Eucharist my free online book accompanying the NZ Eucharistic text – hopefully of use in other contexts also.

The Archbishops’ message on the Prayer Book’s anniversary.

Catholic spirituality

Published on November 19, 2009 in liturgy and spirituality. 8 Comments Tags: anglican communion, catholic, common prayer, daily office, eucharist, st benedict, three legged stool.

Regular readers here will know I usually avoid classifying myself or others into different boxes and categories. Lately Anglican Catholics have been much in the media in response to the Vatican’s setting up of Anglican Personal Ordinariates.

Bishop Christopher Epting, the Episcopal Church’s deputy to the Presiding Bishop for ecumenical and interreligious relations, has just issued a valuable statement on this.

Last Sunday, Fr Peter Williams, a leading Kiwi Anglican Catholic issued this useful statement:

We Anglican Catholics have always believed that the Church of England essentially continued as part of the great Catholic Church of the west, despite the political events that severed the link with the authority in Rome. Even here, in this corner of the very dispersed Anglican Communion, we continue to believe that. The Catholic essentials continue to keep us close, even though we Anglicans have developed a marked style of our own. As an Anglican Catholic I value that distinctive style a great deal: its dispersal of authority; its unity in essentials and great diversity in inessentials; its ability to live appropriately in very different contexts; its unity through common prayer more than through common dogma; its liberality of style, and so much else.

The Vatican offer appears to invite Anglicans to retain Anglican style, while joining a Communion which is controlled and centralised as never before, which is strangling the life of many of its own communities by its rigid insistence on inessentials such as clerical celibacy and the ordination of men only, and which is inhibiting the ministry potential of so many by demanding slavish conformity. There is an inconsistency here which makes me very uneasy. It certainly has not raised my respect for Vatican judgement or leadership. I shall be very surprised if many Anglicans respond to this offer, and they are likely to be those who cannot cope with the generosity of Anglican style anyway.

The Vatican’s problems which are great, and the Anglican Church’s problems which are also great, will not be helped at all by such an ill-considered move. The spectacular decline of organised Christianity in the west is no respecter of churches, and is best responded to with a generosity of ministry and spirit, rather than with a retreat to the fortresses.

Within all these discussions one might be forgiven for asking, “What constitutes a catholic? What is essential to catholicism? What is catholic spirituality?” Is putting a chasuble on? Or swinging a thurible with some incense? Is wearing a biretta? Or wearing lace, or calling it a cotter? Or being addressed “father”?

Drawing on the insights from the Rule of St Benedict, as highlighted by Martin Thornton, Derek Olsen recently asked these questions and added a three-legged stool to the commonly-used one of scripture, tradition, and reason: the fundamental principles of Eucharist, the Daily Office, and personal prayer. Fr. David Cobb, of Christ Church, New Haven, expanded this with another three legged stool:

If our spirituality is not grounded in the Prayer Book System of Office, Mass and personal prayer- in the same way that our theology is grounded in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason-(and one might add if our life is not focused on service, stewardship and witness, another useful three legged piece of furniture) - then vestments, titles, billowing clouds of incenses and resonant organs are just trifles. They are, in themselves more appealing than liturgy that is sloppy or chummy or self-consciously restrained – but they are not the point.

Might I add the point that, in my opinion, catholic spirituality is founded upon an insight, a belief, a sense that God’s creation is good. We live in a sacramental universe. With flaws, fine. But creation does not manifest God, is not a vehicle for God, in spite of anything – but because of its goodness. Our human nature is good enough to be joined to God in the incarnation. So bread and wine, and water, and relationships, and sex, and flowers, and music, and colours, and smells, and gongs, and stained-glass windows, and glorious architecture, and singing, and oil, and gestures, and laughter, and tears, and processions, and icons, and candles, and… all can and are the vehicles in and through and with which we encounter the deep mystery in whom we live and move and have our being – the mystery we call God.

Just for the record: I’m an orthodox charismatic evangelical catholic

comments policy

Previous posts on Anglican Personal Ordinariates:
First post
Second post
Third post
Fourth post

Ordinary Anglicans?

Published on November 8, 2009 in liturgy. 11 Comments Tags: anglican communion, archbishop of canterbury, benedict xvi, chasuble, divorce, ecumenism, episcopalians, humanae vitae, roman catholics.

[Update - this post was written prior to the apostolic constitution's publication. After reading this post, you can go to the post written after its publication]

I have been promising a third post on Pope Benedict XVI’s Anglican Ordinariates.
First post
Second post

Anglican Ordinariates

Those who have been putting a positive spin on the pope’s announcement of his way for groups of “Anglicans” to join the Roman Catholic Church highlight that this can only have happened building on the ecumenical dialogue of the past few decades. It is clear that the announcement highlights some strong similarities between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. It is unlikely, for example, that this announcement will soon be followed by Benedict creating Salvation Army Ordinariates or even Baptist Ordinariates. That having been said, it is well to be reminded that the presence of Eastern Rites in union with Rome are more a stumbling block rather than encouraging of ecumenical relations between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Similarly, generally people have seen Benedict’s announcement as not forwarding ecumenism between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. Certainly the way that Cardinal Levada so very late informed the Archbishop of Canterbury of developments has been seen as a betrayal of trust, and many wonder why Rowan Williams involved himself in the announcement at all after that as it had absolutely no involvement by him prior to that. The absence of Cardinal Walter Kasper (President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) in all the media announcements spoke loudly. It is little wonder that there are rumours of his impending replacement. The process has also highlighted significant differences in approaches to governance. Some who have hitherto abhorred the infuriatingly, tediously slow, painstaking but open governance processes of Anglicanism have cause to rethink in seeing the alternative closed-door process followed by fait accompli announcements.

There has been a lot of confusion around the announcement. Roman Catholics are stressing that this announcement is in response to requests from Anglicans. A primary driver is said to be the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). For those who are unclear, let’s just clarify: Anglican means being in communion with the See of Canterbury, just as Roman Catholic means being in communion with the See of Rome. TAC is an independent body. It is not Anglican. If TAC joins the Roman Catholic Church there is no change to the situation within the Anglican Communion. TAC is also sometimes described as composed of “former Anglicans.” That may be true for many, but certainly not all of them. TAC also has many former Roman Catholics and in fact its primate, The Most Reverend John Hepworth, is a former Roman Catholic priest.

The rumours that the Vatican will allow the Traditional Anglican Communion tradition of divorce and remarriage and not need to follow Humanae Vitae are false. Roman Catholicism does not do cafeteria catholicism – especially not under Benedict XVI. Cradle Catholics might pick and choose what they will follow or believe, but if you join up – you accept the whole package. Including practising, preaching, and teaching the Vatican’s approach to contraception.

John Hepworth was a Roman Catholic priest who left that priesthood and got married. He joined the Anglican Church of Australia as a priest. Then he joined the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia and became a bishop. He has divorced his first wife and remarried. He has three children. He is now primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion. This is clearly the sort of group that gets heated about women in ministry (about which Jesus said nothing) and committed gay relationships (about which Jesus said nothing) but has no issues with divorce and remarriage (about which Jesus did teach). Far from being accepted as a priest (let alone an Ordinary – the technical term for a leader of an Ordinariate) in an Anglican Ordinariate, John Hepworth, as a divorced and remarried man, may find he is forbidden from receiving communion as a returning member of the Roman Catholic Church (this may be a sacrifice he is willing to make in his acceptance, once again, that this is the true faith – though how he understands the Vatican’s attitude to his marriages no interviewer appears to have thought of asking him). Alternatively the Vatican might not recognise either of his marriages and Hepworth may be left to decide between his priesthood and his family with three children. Many of his followers follow the logic that committed same-sex relationships are a threat to marriage, but I suspect that most of those would regard this as a bridge too far (Tiber or no Tiber) from someone who laments this as “a time when the family is under great stress.”

Anglican extra-Ordinariates?

Regularly, estimates of the numbers who will join the RC Church are around half a million. TAC claims over 400,000 (it is a little hard to work out where these are, there are about 61 members in NZ with no buildings, there are several hundred in the UK – these have just accepted Benedict’s invitation). Some commentators note the string of Benedict’s poorly advised announcements, comments, and decisions and, with differing intensity, add the creation of Anglican Ordinariates to this list. We will have to wait and see if there is actually any weight behind the predictions and the effect that such an influx of conservative Christians (including clergy) will have on the increasingly liberal Roman Catholic communities especially in England and USA.

Predictions that at least a thousand priests would leave the Church of England over the ordination of women actually resulted in 480 taking up the financial offer involved. 80 of those later returned to the Church of England (I don’t know how many of those had the integrity to return their generous financial leaving gift). This time there will be no financial sweetener to leave. Many commentators are just assuming that stunning (neo-)gothic buildings are the property of their congregations and will go where the congregation goes. Yeah Right!

What about Roman Catholic priests who left priestly ministry to get married, have remained faithful to their marriage, and members of the Roman Catholic Church, have always wanted to be able to continue functioning as priests but have accepted their position within Roman Catholicism? Tough. There are over one hundred thousand of such priests not allowed to exercise their vocation and priesthood. Clearly they should have thought ahead, become Anglicans, then joined TAC – that might give them a chance now.

What about the difference in income between Roman Catholic priests and Anglican priests? Don’t go there. Nor to the difference in giving traditions between Anglican and Roman Catholic parishioners. (Remember Episcopalians are expected to tithe). Cheap labour has never been brought up as a reason for compulsory celibacy.

What about the camp culture in some Anglo-Catholicism? The RC Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered. On November 29, 2005, the Congregation for Catholic Education which oversees seminary formation affirmed, “the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.” (no more jokes in the vestry – sorry sacristy – about the quality of the lace). As to transitory adolescence-like homosexual problems: “such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.” Furthermore, his spiritual director and confessor are duty-bound to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding toward ordination. The Vatican has made very clear – the ruling against ordaining men with any homosexual tendencies applies in all contexts. That includes Anglican Ordinariates. “Single” Anglican priests may well think twice before crossing this bridge let alone burning it.

Ordinary Anglicans?

A lot of Roman Catholic commentators appear to have little understanding that much of African Anglicanism is as anti-RC as it is anti-women in ministry/committed same sex relationships. These commentators think that those Africans unhappy with the Anglican Communion will naturally tend to take up Benedict’s offer. Nigerian Anglicans, one of the larger provinces, may have removed communion with the See of Canterbury from their Constitution, but I can assure you, you will not be hearing Hail Marys from their churches. These are part of the GAFCON movement which will be far more deeply affected by the unethical investment policies of the Sydney Anglican Diocese which financially underpins it and recently lost $160 million, than by the pope’s announcement. Remember Sydney requires its Anglican clergy to sign they will not follow such popish practices as wearing a chasuble or adding water to the wine.

Every Anglican priest who joins the RC Church will have to accept Apostolicae Curae that his priesthood was “absolutely null and utterly void.” He will have to accept that the deep reverence that he, as an Anglo-Catholic priest brought to his liturgical celebrations was play acting with fancy clothes on. He was deluded, and should he wish to function as a real priest, he will need to be ordained twice again.

For many Anglican priests and faithful joining an Anglican Ordinariate, this will be their first regular encounter with Anglican liturgy. These have been proudly and principally using the Roman Rite all their lives. Once in an Anglican Ordinariate, however, they abandon Anglican breadth, flexibility, and allowance for eccentricities. Anglican Ordinariates will follow Anglican liturgy slightly adapted. For ordinary Anglicans, this may be the final irony.

comments policy

After reading this post, you can go to the post written after its publication

Anglican Rite?

Published on October 28, 2009 in liturgy. 8 Comments Tags: anglican communion, anglicanism, Mass, new zealand, orthodox, roman catholics, vatican.

It is worth adding some further reflections to the Vatican’s recent announcement of Anglican Personal Ordinariates. You may wish to read my post the end of the Anglican Communion first.

Firstly I want to highlight that, in my opinion, denominational boundaries are far far less significant than previously. Increasingly, it appears to me, denominational boundaries are no longer the primary “partitioning”. If one visualises denominational boundaries, for example, as vertical lines, then it seems to me that the horizontal lines are far more significant – where people receive support and encouragement from “evangelical”, or justice-focused, or environmentally-conscious, or contemplative, or liturgical – etc. And one finds those perspectives, with which one resonates, across denominations. The internet, of course, fits in with this “cafeteria style” spirituality.

Let us also not forget that, to most people on this planet, discussions about different denominations are as esoteric as debates about different perforation gauges on postage stamps. And we need to remember that these are people to whom we are called to bring the good news, and the way we live and model our unity and disunity will affect our ability to bring that good news.

Many have highlighted that some people genuinely will benefit from moving denominations. They will flourish, they will grow in holiness and be better suited in their new context to further God’s reign of love. We need to wish them Godspeed and encourage them. But there will be others who will essentially be as little suited in their new denomination as they were in their old – because of temperament or an inability to live within any constraints, be they Anglican on the one hand, or Roman Catholic on the other. [To be fair, those who encourage people to move denominations, with the understanding that some people suit one rather than another, tend to be of an Anglican perspective. To Roman Catholics, Anglicanism formally cannot even be categorised as a "church" but rather is referred to as an Ecclesial community]

Also let us not forget that the Anglican tradition has always been open to receiving members of the Roman Catholic denomination. In our own New Zealand Anglican binding liturgical formularies there is the allowance for communities to celebrate the whole Roman Catholic English (ICEL) Novus Ordo Mass as it is without alteration. The only concrete personal experience I have had since the Vatican announcement last week has been of a Roman Catholic priest seeking information on how to become a priest serving within Anglicanism (Note: Anglicans accept the validity of Roman Catholic orders and all other sacraments).

Ecclesiology

Anglican ecclesiology is essentially identical to Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic ecclesiology in seeing the local Church centered on the bishop as “the catholic Church”, the full manifestation of the Body of Christ. This Episcopal or “Eucharistic Ecclesiology” (as it is often now termed) stands in contrast to Roman Catholic ecclesiology in which the local Church is a “particular Church” manifesting the universal, worldwide Church. In this Roman Catholic ecclesiology, such a local Church can only be considered “catholic” if it is a member, part, or portion of the universal Church, ie. in communion with Rome. Whereas the former approach sees each bishop as successor of Peter (where the bishop is there the catholic church is – Ignatius of Antioch et. al.), the latter has a universal bishop for the universal Church. It will be very interesting to see the document “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium” when it is finally produced. (Please let me know when it does come out where one can find it online). One co-president of the commission, Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamum, is well known for his exposition of “Eucharistic Ecclesiology.” The other, Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, was notable by his absence in the multiple press-conferences last week.

Many Roman Catholics are totally unaware that the Catholic Church has a great number of different rites (see here and here). In many of these rites priests are married. Since the 1980s there has been an “Anglican Use” within the Roman Rite. The pope granted some former Anglican and Episcopal clergy and their parishes the faculty of celebrating the sacramental rites according to slightly-altered Anglican forms. The new Apostolic Constitution, as I said, extends Anglican Use in an analogous way similar to what the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” did for the Latin Mass.

Within the Catholic Church anyone may attend any Catholic Church of any rite and receive the sacraments. It is no different than attending a different parish church in the same town. If you commit to a rite you can be married and ordained in that rite as a Catholic priest (if they have married priests). You would be “incardinated” in that rite. Eg. a Latin Catholic can join an Eastern rite, marry and be ordained. (Thanks for confirmation of this paragraph from Dr. William Ditewig).

The Vatican announcement came at the time the Church of England General Synod was working through issues about women bishops. It also came during the month-long meeting of Roman Catholic African bishops in Rome. Some Africans are seeking a relaxation of the Vatican’s celibacy rules. This is a no-go area for the current pope. While Anglican Use, with its non-celibate priests, is well-known in some countries, the African bishops were unaware of it. Its extension by the Apostolic Constitution caught them by surprise. Some suggest there was much muttering in the Vatican’s grand corridors. Others say that muttering is not only happening there.

It is my intention to continue this reflection in the future.

End of Anglican Communion?

Published on October 21, 2009 in liturgy. 43 Comments Tags: anglican communion, archbishop of canterbury, catholic, new zealand, ordination, roman catholic, Rowan Williams, sydney anglicans, twitter, vatican.

Update: I am thrilled with the interest in this post, which is currently running about a reader every 8 seconds. It is also gratifying to see such helpful and positive comments. If there are any developments, rather than altering this post I think I would produce another – I already have some ideas in mind. So if you are interested, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or other ways of seeing what is new here.
Update: part 2 of this reflection is here

A few hours ago there was an absolute internet frenzy as people predicted and then reported, tweet by tweet, the announcement from the Vatican and the joint press conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster.

Let me add my own initial thoughts to this confusing dust-cloud following the announcement that the pope will create “Personal Ordinariates” for Anglicans who wish to come home to Rome. Archbishop Rowan said that it would be a “serious mistake” to view the development as a response to the difficulties within the Anglican Communion. As we in New Zealand say: “Yeah right!”

To anyone who has been watching the direction that Pope Benedict has been moving, and those he has been welcoming into his fold, the commentary that this is “surprising” is itself surprising. Just to mention recent events that have been in the news: the reconciliation with Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson and his Society of St. Pius X, the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” giving wider possibility to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, reconciliation with the traditionalist “Transalpine Redemptorists,” and so forth. I want to highlight some things I have not yet seen mentioned:

married priests in Anglican Personal Ordinariates will have to marry prior to ordination to the diaconate

They will not be able to marry after ordination. Should his wife die, or he gets divorced (sorry – his marriage is annulled) he will not be able to marry. Roman Catholic deacons can be married, but in order to do so, must be married prior to ordination. In the tweeting frenzy Scott Richert wrote, “There is no warrant in tradition for marrying AFTER receiving Holy Orders. None.” He may very well be right. I am genuinely interested in this point, and hope that people in the comments box below might provide evidence for or against this. My reply to him for clarification has not yet been responded to.

bishops in Anglican Personal Ordinariates are celibate

there has been no rescinding of Apostolicae Curae.

Anglican orders are not accepted by the Vatican. Anglican “priests” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as priests will have to be ordained twice (or at least conditionally ordained twice). And they will have to be males. Anglican “bishops” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as bishops will have to be ordained thrice (or at least conditionally ordained thrice). And they will have to be males. And celibate.

From a church (New Zealand Anglican) that leads Christian history in having created a “Tikanga” structure (where there are parallel episcopal jurisdictions according to cultural streams) I am intrigued by the concept of “Personal Ordinariates.” These are described by John Allen as “non-territorial diocese” (which sounds like an oxymoron to me!) My comment to Scott Richert and anyone else is: There is no warrant in tradition for “Personal Ordinariates.” None. But, of course, as usual, I am very very comfortable to be demonstrated wrong on this also. Please… anyone?

The end of the Anglican Communion?

As Mark Twain would say, “The reports of the end of the Anglican Communion are greatly exaggerated.” Andrew Brown, a regular person lining up for the funeral of the Communion, highlights his own weak grasp on the issues by declaring that only homosexuals can be celibate! Clearly heterosexuals, it would appear according to him, are either too weak or too immoral to be able to control their urges (not to mention that Andrew Brown is unable to distinguish doctrine from discipline). Scott Richert may have a slightly better grasp on the consequences for Anglicanism. Whilst no one would want to impugn curate’s-egg motives to the Archbishop of Canterbury, one cannot help wondering if there is just the flicker of a smile under that beard. In one Roman gesture he may be rid of, at one estimate, up to 2,000 of his CofE priests who have been holding out against his strong conviction for women in all three orders. Rowan Williams is well-known for ordaining openly practising homosexuals. Traditionalist Anglicans around the globe have struggled with women and with gays in a committed relationship being ordained. Commentators are repeatedly highlighting that this is an invitation from Rome to misogynists and homophobes.

In North America some Anglicans formed a new denomination The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). This brings together two extremes of the Anglican spectrum – Rome-facing and Geneva-facing. This marriage of convenience, like the 1977 followers of the Affirmation of St. Louis, cannot last, as, at its heart it is united around being against one thing. Rome’s declaration cannot but affect it. If the Rome-facing ACNA (married) bishops can stomach losing their purple, pectoral crosses, honorary doctoral gowns, and complex titles, they may yet lead their groups home to Rome. This will impact the attempt of some Anglicans to produce a “covenant”. Nigerian “Anglicans” have already formally removed the Archbishop of Canterbury from their constitution. Sydney Anglicans, leaders in GAFON/FOCA/Mainstream, are now not only struggling with theology, church history, and liturgical practice, but have recently realised they haven’t been that good at investments either (their $265 million assets are now worth $105 million). This Geneva-facing, congregationalist end of the Anglican spectrum does not need a Communion in the way that others see it. Rome’s announcement may help towards trimming off the extremes leaving an Anglican Communion that is certainly leaner but hopefully spending far less energy on peripherals and with a stronger focus on the end of the Communion, in the sense of the purpose of the church.

It is not the numbers inside the church that is ultimately significant IMO. It is the focus on service – in the two senses: our liturgical worship of God, and our service to God by our care of people and God’s world. Anglicanism may yet, through this, become more clearly a 21st century church episcopally led, synodically governed, and adapted for the particular context in which it finds itself, working “together with other Provinces and with our ecumenical and interfaith partners to promote God’s reign on earth.”

comments policy

part 2 of this reflection is here

part 3 of this reflection is here

The Blessed Virgin Mary

Published on August 15, 2009 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: anglican communion, assumption, august 15, blessed virgin mary, dormition, roman catholics, vatican.

asuncion20

Click for my reflection on Mary’s feast day.

The origin of the feast day of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15 is unknown. It is possibly the date of the dedication of some church in her name.

Some quotes worthy of reflection from Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ – joint statement of the Anglican – Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC):

The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption raise a special problem for those Anglicans who do not consider that the precise definitions given by these dogmas are sufficiently supported by Scripture….

In the East the feast was known as the ‘dormition’, which implied her death but did not exclude her being taken into heaven. In the West the term used was ‘assumption’,which emphasized her being taken into heaven but did not exclude the possibility of her dying….

One consequence of our separation has been a tendency for Anglicans and Roman Catholics alike to exaggerate the importance of the Marian dogmas in themselves at the expense of the other truths more closely related to the foundation of the Christian faith. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception of Mary must be understood in the light of the more central truth of her identity as Theotókos, which itself depends on faith in the Incarnation. We recognize that, following the Second Vatican Council and the teaching of recent Popes, the Christological and ecclesiological context for the Church’s doctrine concerning Mary is being re-received within the Roman Catholic Church. We now suggest that the adoption of an eschatological perspective may deepen our shared understanding of the place of Mary in the economy of grace, and the tradition of the Church concerning Mary which both our communions receive. Our hope is that the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion will recognize a common faith in the agreement concerning Mary which we here offer. Such a re-reception would mean the Marian teaching and devotion within our respective communities, including differences of emphasis, would be seen to be authentic expressions of Christian belief….

As a result of our study, the Commission offers the following agreements, which we believe significantly advance our consensus regarding Mary. We affirm together

- the teaching that God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into his glory as consonant with Scripture, and only to be understood in the light of Scripture (paragraph 58);

- that in view of her vocation to be the mother of the Holy One, Christ’s redeeming work reached ‘back’ in Mary to the depths of her being and to her earliest beginnings (paragraph 59);

- that the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of hope and grace, can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions (paragraph 60);

- that this agreement, when accepted by our two Communions, would place the questions about authority which arise from the two definitions of 1854 and 1950 in a new ecumenical context (paragraphs 61-63);

- that Mary has a continuing ministry which serves the ministry of Christ, our unique mediator, that Mary and the saints pray for the whole Church and that the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us is not communion-dividing.

Almighty God,
who looked upon the lowliness of the Blessed Virgin Mary
and chose her to be the mother of your only Son:
grant that we who are redeemed by his blood
may share with her in the glory of your eternal kingdom;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Amen.

Liturgy as language (part 3)

Published on July 25, 2009 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: anglican communion, anglicanism, common prayer, daily office, eucharist, liturgy, new zealand, ordination, worship.

This series “Liturgy as language” is going in a direction that will be relevant to other contexts (trust me – I know what I’m doing). But this particular post continues and completes the previous post in outlining briefly the New Zealand Anglican context that has brought us to this place. If you are not in New Zealand your context may have similarities – but if there are no similarities to the NZ context, and if you have no interest in this kiwi context go for a walk through a park, or telephone a friend, or contemplate for five minutes, and we’ll see you next time…

New Zealand Anglican Liturgy from 1984

The story so far to 1984 and beyond is of an increasing abandonment of the concept and experience of “common prayer.” Common prayer includes knowing what is coming, one can prepare in anticipation for the communal worship beforehand, during the service one can respond and participate at significant moments often “by heart”, worship has stability from week to week, from one congregation time-slot to another time, and there is a sense of sharing in a wider community – from community to community, locally, and even internationally and ecumenically. [Common prayer also spares us from everything being under the control of the pastor or particular worship leader.] All that changed around 1984 in New Zealand Anglicanism.

Since that post I have had people give example after example – including one of our larger communities where the response to even “The Lord be with you” varies from week to week, demanding one keeps one’s eyes on the pew sheet…

Some comments on the previous post highlighted that the loss of common prayer includes a disenfranchising of children who cannot read, of parents supervising children, and of older people. In other words the “target” of the worship is precisely towards the age-group regularly missing in NZ Anglicanism! A further reflection might be that this means that “targeting” this age-group in this particular manner is notably unsuccessful – and that is leaving to one side my opinion that the “target” of worship ought to be God…

A list of some further changes in the last 25 years

The trajectory of liturgical worship sketched in NZ Anglicanism after 1984 continued and accelerated. Some points include:

At the 1987/1988 General Synods, the requirement of at least those ordained to pray the Daily Office was removed from our formularies. This resulted in individualising prayer and daily devotion. Clergy of course (one would hope) continued a personal devotional life but more often did so because it enriched their own individual piety – not with a sense that they were “praying the prayer of the church.” Even those who continue praying the Daily Office now often (mostly?) do this as a way of individual piety rather than as the prayer of the church (which it now struggles to be so understood). Furthermore, a variety of different forms of daily devotions is now provided – so that there is no assurance that those committed to the Daily Office are in any sense “on the same page.”
Total Ministry/ Locally shared ministry/mutual ministry increasingly developed, both in rural and urban areas. This way of locally calling to ordination (and other ministries) may include having positive encouragement of the ministry of all the baptised, but in practice it also resulted in poor liturgical formation, training, and study by those being ordained. In some places the link between presiding, pastoring, and preaching was broken.
Having a lay person lead the “first part of the service” with the priest absolving and leading the Eucharistic Prayer often ended up re-cluttering the Gathering Rite (so that the lay leader would have something to do), increasing a magical understanding of priesthood, and breaking the sense that the Eucharist and any service is a single, unified rite with a dynamic sense of movement. [There are other issues with this: the quality of formation of such lay leadership and concomitantly its effect on the quality of worship, the clericalisation of lay ministry, the loss of the sense of the full participation of those in the pews, and the focusing of lay ministry into the sanctuary rather than into the world...]
The Education for Liturgy Kit (E.L. Kit), the only provincial liturgical formation resource (an undated 200 page ring-bound prepared by the Provincial Board of Christian Education) is now pretty well unknown and difficult to obtain. There appears nowhere one can obtain it. There are no references to it I can find online. New clergy, and those coming from overseas regularly have not even heard of it.
One of the best endowed seminaries in the Anglican Communion, the provincial St John’s College, handed over most of its academic training to Auckland University which has little energy for what it termed “parson’s papers” such as liturgy. The NZ Anglican Church keeps no statistics of the proportions of those training now at this national theological college, but I would be interested if any reader had any idea about this. I am guessing not more than a fifth of those training for ordination are training at St John’s, and even some of them are not there for a full course, but are there only for a year or so.
Curacy, traditionally four years formation under two different training vicars, often became not viable financially so that some of those recently ordained were immediately placed in charge of a parish with variable ongoing training and formation.
This province, small in worship numbers and stretched by vast distances, has increasingly put its energy into areas other than liturgy and not placed quality of worship as a primary strategy of its common life.
The 1996/1998 General Synods altered the Form for Ordering the Eucharist formulary so that it is now authorised for Sunday Eucharists also. Previously this highly flexible rite was explicitly for special occasions other than the Sunday Eucharist (as it is in TEC). From this time all that is required now, even for the Sunday Eucharist, is three paragraphs in a Eucharistic Prayer – all else may be sourced elsewhere or created locally. Prior to 1998 responses varied but there was a limit to the variation. That limiting ceased in 1998.
In 2002 General Synod passed the Worship Template which accepts any service that has the following structure: Gathering – Story – Going out; ie. a beginning, a middle, and an end.
2006 General Synod authorised the Alternative Form for Ordering the Eucharist as a formulary of our church. Even the highly flexible Form for Ordering the Eucharist clearly was not seen to be sufficiently flexible. Now all that is required is that the Eucharistic Prayer be authorised somewhere in the Anglican Communion.
The latest meeting of General Synod (2008) authorised another raft of Eucharistic Prayers. These are mostly not new ones, but reworking of other current Eucharistic Prayers in NZPB so that those who have one of those “by heart” find themselves stumbling over these revisions and in the congregation blurting out responses that are no longer there.

A church prior to 1984 held together by the shared discipline of common worship is now held together by everyone knowing everyone (extended whanau/family style). Understandably some are clamouring now for other forms of holding our unity.

For the New Zealand Anglican church the sense that liturgy is the work of the (whole) church wherever we are, from rural church, to school chapel, to cathedral, to hospital bedside – we are all praying the same, participating in the one worship, has been mostly lost.

Liturgy as language (part 2)

Published on July 8, 2009 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: Anglican, anglican communion, anglicanism, anglicans, book of common prayer, catholic, collect, common prayer, Creation, creativity, daily office, eucharist, justice, last supper, lectio, lectionary, liturgy, new zealand, prayer, presider, roman catholic, worship.

1984 25 years on

Liturgy of the Eucharist 1984

This is the second post in a series looking at how we can use fixed liturgical worship to form thriving, vibrant, growing communities. The series began from the contention of a well-informed New Zealand Anglican priest and his assertion that he cannot think of a single congregation that follows our official liturgy that is either growing, or thriving with a good mixture of ages (especially including younger people). Furthermore, this, he sees as originating in decisions made in the 1980s.

This particular post will be part focusing on New Zealand’s Anglican liturgical history essentially over the last two and a half decades as I believe that this period’s history clarifies the situation we now find ourselves in. This will continue in a later post. And then the series will continue by exploring what, in my opinion, is the underlying dynamic that has been lost during these decades. This current post may be of particular interest more to Kiwis. So, if you have no interest in Kiwi Anglican liturgical history go and have a coffee with a friend, or go and watch a sunset, or pray the daily office…

It will become clear that in the last two and a half decades in NZ Anglicanism there has been a movement away from the concept of liturgy as common prayer. The 1984 Liturgy revision began the loss of knowing responses by heart. From this point NZ Anglicans inevitably become more book-bound (pew-sheet bound, or later projector-screen bound).

Kiwis – don’t look it up: what is the response to “The peace of God be always with you.”?

1964 to 1984

New Zealand Anglicans once had had a relatively conservative liturgical life, following the Book of Common Prayer and minor variants of that. In 1964 there began a revision process that resulted in a 1966 eucharistic rite and a further revision of this in 1970. So by 1984 there had been two decades of either the BCP or a well-received, single contemporary revision. In 1984 all that changed. Now, alongside the contemporary revision were new Eucharist rites that, though structurally relatively similar, had significantly innovative texts.

In these innovative eucharistic texts the traditional, ecumenical, internationally agreed English-language texts used throughout the Anglican Communion were replaced. The following are two examples replacing the sanctus/benedictus (”Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might…”) in 1984:

Holy God, holy and merciful, holy and just,
glory and goodness come from you.
Glory to you most high and gracious God.

and

Holy, holy, holy:
God of mercy, giver of life;
earth and sea and sky
and all that lives,
declare your presence and your glory.

One of the new rites intentionally had far more for the congregation to recite, again increasing the tendency to have more time with heads in books.

Every Sunday in the 1984 revision now no longer had a single collect usually drawn out of the great collect heritage shared throughout Anglicanism. Now each Sunday there was a choice of three collects – many of them not following a collect structure or style.

Kiwis – don’t look it up: what is the response to “The peace of God be with you all.”?

A completely new Order for Celebrating the Eucharist was produced and included in the 1984 Liturgy. In this order basically everything for a Eucharist (even responses) could be resourced from anywhere or created locally (excepting the Last Supper story and one paragraph were fixed in any constructed Eucharistic Prayer).

People were not all following the same readings either. As well as the BCP lectionary, New Zealand’s own creation (a two year thematic lectionary), the Australian Anglican revision of the Roman Catholic three-year lectionary was also authorised.

As well as music and singing being central to liturgy in my opinion, singing inevitably aids memorisation. With three completely different texts (for example) for the sanctus/benedictus (not interchangeable between rites) many communities no longer accessed good quality national ecumenical music or international Anglican and/or ecumenical musical settings.

In summary

From 1984 some wonderfully poetic, imaginative, creative, inclusive, and inculturated texts were being presented to regular worshipping Anglicans. It must be remembered, all this is within the context of a very small province of church-going Anglicans. The numbers in church (say about 35,000 in church on Sunday) are probably that of a reasonable size Church of England diocese. Moving from worshipping community to community there was no longer the expectation that the same readings would be followed, that the same collect would be used, that the same responses and texts would be used, that the same musical settings would be found. Even within a single parish, moving from one service time to another one might encounter completely unfamiliar material. Week by week turning up at the same time on Sunday one could be confronted with a different set of responses in rotation.

Creativity and flexibility became values now embodied in the official rites. Saying and singing things “by heart” (in the deepest sense of that phrase) was being lost. Common prayer – in the sense of celebrating Eucharist as the great shared worship action of Christ and his body, the church – was being lost in individualism and congregationalism. The measure of a “successful” service was shifting. The understanding of liturgy was shifting from community actions and celebration accompanied by words with a significant amount sung and by heart - to reciting beautiful poetic words at each other read from books and ever-changing pew sheets.

Answers:
The Peace of God be always with you.
Praise to Christ who is our peace.
and
The peace of God be with you all.
In God’s justice is our peace.

Next time you hear either of those particular responses check – is the person addressing you/the congregation or addressing the book (pamphlet) s/he is reading from? And are most in the congregation addressing the presider in return – or do they have their eyes fixed on the book/screen/pamphlet? If in your community you are actually addressing each other and there are no books/screens/pamphlets involved at this point give yourself a gold star liturgical WOF. If you got both the above responses correct from memory your application to lecture on liturgy at St John’s College has been accepted. For the rest of us… this series will be continued…

The next post in this series is found here

“Anglican” personal prelature?

Published on February 12, 2009 in liturgy. Closed Tags: Anglican, anglican church, anglican communion, anglicans, episcopal church, liturgy, ordination, roman catholic, worship.

There has been much internet speculation that the Vatican will establish an Anglican personal prelature for unhappy Anglicans. Opus Dei is currently the only personal prelature. Unlike most church governance, which oversees a geographic territory, a personal prelature has a prelate, appointed by the pope, who oversees those linked by a particular agreement rather than living in a particular location.

Within the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church there is a pastoral provision since 1980 of the option of incorporating certain Anglican liturgical traditions within the Roman Rite. This is set out in the Book of Divine Worship. About seventy priests from The Episcopal Church have had their orders regularised and can now function as Roman Catholic priests. Seven parishes follow the Book of Divine Worship.

Internet speculation and newspaper Chinese whispers has the Traditional Anglican Communion, a body claiming about 400,000 faithful, on the threshold of being accepted as a Roman Catholic personal prelature. Ruth Gledhill, the influential Times Religion Correspondent, has repeatedly promoted this rumour (another example). The Traditional Anglican Communion parted company with the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women, liturgical revisions, and homosexuality.

Archbishop John Hepworth

Let’s put this rumour out of its misery once and for all. The Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, John Hepworth, was a Roman Catholic priest who left his celibacy vows and the Roman Catholic Church, joined the Anglican Church of Australia and got married, then divorced, then married again, also leaving his commitment to the Anglican Church of Australia. And the Vatican is on the threshold of accepting this Traditional Anglican Communion as a personal prelature! Yeah right! Furthermore, the Vatican officially still holds to Anglican orders being invalid. And not one of the – is it 27? – different rites of the Roman Catholic Church has married bishops. Nor do Eastern Orthodox.

As a footnote: Isn’t it fascinating that those who hold to biblical literalism on the few, disputed texts about homosexuality, and/or women in leadership (”them“) – appear to be so selective in their stance when it comes to divorce (which so quickly is about “us”), with Jesus having said nothing about the former, and being quite clear about the latter. I have seen little (no?) disquiet about Anglican/Episcopalian twice or thrice married bishops. Just one example: Bishop Walter C. Righter was put on a heresy trial not for being married thrice, but for ordaining a gay man in Newark. [Ps. The charges were dismissed 7-1]

Update February 13: Those readers who take seriously the prophetic powers of Herbert W. Armstrong of The Plain Truth and his ascertaining that these are the end-times will be interested to note the eagerness with which their website reports these Chinese whispers:

The Trumpet has followed this subject closely because of its prophetic significance. For half a century, Herbert W. Armstrong and his Plain Truth magazine expounded on biblical prophecies foretelling the unification of Protestants with their Roman Catholic mother church. The October 1961 Plain Truth, for example, said this: “The pope will step in as the supreme unifying authority—the only one that can finally unite the differing nations of Europe. … Europe will go Roman Catholic! Protestantism will be absorbed into the ‘mother’ church—and totally abolished.” This prophecy is in process of being fulfilled right now. The Vatican may announce its decision to absorb the Traditional Anglican Communion around April this year. (Source here)

Furthermore, one might be helped to ascertain the significance of a “communion” that claims “400,000″ faithful by their international URL: http://acahomeorg0.web701.discountasp.net/tac/tac_index.aspx

Episcopalian solitary

Published on February 5, 2009 in liturgy. Closed Tags: Anglican, anglican communion, anglicanism, episcopal church, episcopalians, liturgy, monasticism, religious life.

Sr Mary Paul

I know there are a number of solitaries who are regular visitors to this site. A solitary takes religious vows not within an order or religious community, but directly to his or her bishop. Some run websites and our sites are linked, and you will find them in the links to this website.

I am delighted to have e-met Sr. Mary Paul. Her website is The Still Heart. After a long journey, Bishop Sergio Carranza, of the Diocese of Los Angeles consecrated her on October 30th 2008 as a Professed Episcopal Solitary. With Life Vows of Simplicity, Obedience, and Chastity. In Anglicanism Professed Solitaries are few and far between. There was one I knew in the Dunedin Diocese (NZ) but he has now passed away. One suggestion is that there are only six such Nuns and one Brother in the entire Anglican Communion.

Pray for Anglican Primates Meeting

Published on February 4, 2009 in liturgy. Closed Tags: Anglican, anglican communion, anglicanism, eucharist, evangelical, liturgy, spirituality.

The Anglican Primates are meeting in Alexandria. I urge your prayers for these church leaders. You can light a candle in the Virtual Chapel. [Eg. my candle, as yours, should stay lit for 48 hours there]. There will be plenty of reporting and discussing of the meeting on websites and blogs, probably to whatever level of acrimony you are comfortable with as a Christian. A search for the meeting, under news, blogs, or the web generally, should turn up plenty.

My liturgical interest lies around my understanding that last Primates Meeting, the Primates could not even muster up the mutual courtesy to be photographed together, let alone celebrate Eucharist together. I struggled to make sense of “Anglican Communion”, when our leaders have literally excommunicated each other. I would appreciate receiving information whether there has been any progression towards being able to celebrate Eucharist together, and be photographed together, or whether the situation is unchanged. [Update Feb 6: "Significantly, after several [Primates} refused to attend the summer's Lambeth Conference in protest at liberal developments in the US and Canada concerning homosexual ordination and same-sex blessings, no Archbishops are boycotting this meeting of the Primates. So far, none have refused to attend the morning Eucharist service which allows them to share communion with teach other." From Times Online]

I would also be interested in being informed if the Primates address Sydney’s revisionism.

Increasingly, it appears to me, denominational boundaries are no longer the primary “partitioning”. If one images denominational boundaries, for example, as vertical lines, then it seems to me far more significant are the horizontal lines where people receive support and encouragement from “evangelical”, or justice-focused, or environmentally-conscious, or contemplative, or liturgical – etc. And one finds those perspectives with which one resonates across denominations. Even across different World Religions. The internet, of course, fits in with this “cafeteria style” spirituality. You who visit this site may be Anglican, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Sikh, Jewish, atheist, agnostic… It is little wonder to me that the traditional hierarchical structures of our denominational divisions struggle with all that the internet opens up.

One of the treasures of Anglicanism, it appears to me, is the Elizabethan settlement which focused unity on shared spiritual discipline rather than agreed theological positions. At a time when I believe there is much appreciation of such a community in a spiritually hungry world, Anglicanism appears to be losing this insight with a concomitant clamour for a structurally Roman Catholicism lite on the one hand, and a protestant confessional position on the other. The Primates’ inability to break bread together is both a symbol and result of this newer tendency to be fully in agreement with each other first.