Celebrating 30 years of schism

The modern Anglican wars began with the Congress of St. Louis in September 1977, in which 2,000 Episcopal clergy and laity met in reaction to the ordination of women and the 1979 revision to the prayer book. The result was the Affirmation of St. Louis and the beginnings of what we now call the “continuing Anglican” movement.

Last week, two of the major traditionalist Anglican groups held a convention, but more on that in a moment.

Thirty years ago today, the first four continuing Anglican bishops were consecrated in Denver by Rt. Rev. Albert A. Chambers, retired ECUSA bishop of Springfield. The bishops were James Mote of Denver, Robert Morse of Oakland, Calif., Peter Watterson of West Palm Beach, Fl. and Charles Dale Doren of Pittsburgh.

The next morning, the New York Times reported “Episcopal Dissidents Consecrate Bishops,” and the story was picked up by AP and UPI. The Times story reported:

The establishment of a hierarchy of bishops gives the Anglican Church of North America, as it it has been temporarily named, the full resources of an independent church and is expected by its leaders to spur the pace of growth.

Alas, it was all downhill from there, as the continuing Anglican movement degenerated into the alphabet soup that characterizes it today. Morse formed the APCK (Anglican Province of Christ the King), Mote formed the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church), Doren formed the UECNA (United Episcopal Church of North America) and Watterson (like many others) left for the RCC.

The rest of the traditionalist Episcopalians stayed in ECUSA, accepting the new prayer book and (in most cases) the ordination of women. However, the 2003 General Convention fueled another exodus, with consent to the ordination of Gene Robinson, failure to ban gay marriage and rejection of a basic statement of Christianity put forth by Bp. Keith Ackerman of Quincy. For others, GC 2006 was the last straw.

Twenty-plus years after the movement was born, did those leaving ECUSA after the GC 2003 and GC 2006 join with the continuing movement? No, they created their own hierarchies and bishops, notably the AMiA (Anglican Mission in the Americas) and CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America).

Some of these newer groups (AMiA, CANA) with some older groups formed the Common Cause Partners, whose website (“United-Anglicans.org”) is tragically laughable denial of the ongoing schism. At best, the CCP is a loose federation which might form a new denomination in a decade, but seems equally likely to spin apart on its own centripetal forces.

The proliferation of denominations gives credence to critics who say that all those (us?) continuing types can do is fracture and schism. Don’t get me wrong: if it’s a choice between heresy and schism, the early church fathers showed us that truth is more important than unity. However, between the continuing groups there are few doctrinal issues — notably that CANA can’t decide how it feels about women’s ordination. But most of the rest of the disagreements seem to be over liturgy (APCK vs. UECNA) or personalities (most of them).

There are a few signs of healing and perhaps sanity. Last summer, the ACC, UEC and APCK have put aside their differences of the preceding 29 years, joining back in communion the first three churches of the continuing movement. Both ACC and UEC were represented at the decennial APCK convention in Oakland last Friday, when James Provence was installed as Morse’s successor as APCK “primate.”

Meanwhile, the AMiA convention in Dallas last week attracted a number of Anglican bishops and clergy, including Common Cause bishops in the US and Anglican bishops from outside the US (including UK, and Africa). No sign of reaching out to new partners, but a strong show of unity from the existing ones.

Interestingly, the AMiA claims (according to David Virtue) to be producing a new translation of the 1662 BCP into modern language, co-authored by Rev. Dr. John Rodgers of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry and Rev. Dr. Peter Toon of the Prayer Book Society USA. No word of when or how the prayer book will be distributed — but this prayer book could become the first instrument of unity that bridges the St. Louis and recent defectors from ECUSA.

Anglican, Christian, or both?

In November, I offered up a 2x2 typology of Anglican liturgy and theology, in which I place my interests in the Anglo-Catholic quadrant. It seems to me that most of the Anglo-Catholics are those who left PECUSA left in the 1970s, before the 1979 prayer book and 1982 Hymnal. Meanwhile, those leaving recently tend to be more evangelical — but in the past 30 years adopted Rite II and praise music before heading for the exits.

Of course, the 2x2 typology is oversimplified. The theology part has much more nuance than just old/new “Christianity”. Heck, back in the 16th century Protestantism had the Lutherans and the Calvinists (Reformed, Presbyterian), and this was before Henry VIII and Elizabeth I gave us the Anglo-Catholic fudge that created the Church of England — let alone the rise of the Baptists, Congregationalists and Methodists, or the 19th century Evangelical movement.

Still, 50 or 100 years ago the variation between liturgical Protestant churches in America was not so very dramatic, particularly since all the hymnals would have an entry by Luther, Wesley and Watts. Across Christianity, there would be Catholic and Orthodox high church worship, a less high church liturgical worship, or a non-liturgical Bible church. On theology, the major heresies were long gone — there would be debates about real presence, or works righteousness vs. salvation by faith, but not about the divinity of Christ or the primacy of Scripture.

All of this is a long-winded way of my wondering whether there are three dimensions but not two: theology, liturgy and music. My rethinking of what constitutes “Anglican worship” was prompted by my visit this morning to a church very much outside my Anglo-Catholic comfort zone. The service this morning was at the Kanata Lakes Fellowship in West Ottawa, an Evangelical “Anglican” church that I heard about from David Virtue’s online news site.

The new parish (begun two weeks ago) is a reaction to the struggles in Canada within the Anglican Church in Canada, struggles that exactly parallel those in the US within TEC. Talking to the parishioners, they clearly draw inspiration from American leaders like Bishop Schofield.

The theological bonafides of KLF are not in question. The new parish is one of three in Ottawa aligned with the Anglican Network Canada. (ANC is headed by Bp. Don Harvey, retired ACC Bishop of Newfoundland). Two of the Ottawa parishes are still in the ACC, but KLF hopes to go straight to the ANC, joining two former ACC parishes in New Westminster (British Columbia). As in the US, the national church has been drifting slowly left for 50 years, but the exodus is accelerating in dioceses with aggressively revisionist bishops.

The service was led by Brian DeVisser, a graduate of the Wycliffe College at U. Toronto. After getting the drift of the ACC seminary’s theology, Brian chose not be ordained in the ACC but hopes to be ordained into the ANC. His sermon (like last week) was on Paul’s letter to the Colossians (this week Colossians 2:6-19), focusing on the sufficiency of Christ without additional works, ritual, or adherence to earthly rules.

In this regard, the theology of our prayer leader was clearly based on scripture (without much regard for the rest of the “stool”, i.e. tradition or reason). This reminded me of a BIble study, or the sermon in a non-denominational Bible church. While “evangelical” (whatever that means), its focus on the original Scriptural meaning and eternal salvation certainly puts it at the other extreme not only from the social Gospel of the TEC/ACC, but also from Joel Osteen (and others) who try to claim that reading the Bible can bring you riches on earth.

On the other hand, the worship style was fairly modern, as proclaimed on the cover of the service booklet:

Kanata Lakes Fellowship is an independent, evangelical church in the Anglican tradition.

Music leader Tony Copple used his electric guitar to lead singing of one hymn (“Beneath the Cross of Jesus” to the tune St. Christopher) and four praise songs. One of the praise songs, “As the Deer”, exactly fit the praise song stereotype of love songs to Jesus:

As the deer pants for the water, so my soul longs after you;
you alone are my heart’s desire, and I long to worship you. …
I want you more than gold or silver, even though you are a king;
I love you more than any other, so much more than anything.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the theology of praise music. However, in my limited understanding of Scripture, the God (in three persons) of the 1st, 11th or 19th century is omniscient and omnipotent, our Lord and savior, not a substitute for a spouse or significant other.

In addition to theology and music, a church is distinguished by its liturgy. The spoken part of today’s liturgy, a “Contemporary Service of Morning Prayer,” was based on a similar service by St. Alban’s (ACC/ANC) in Ottawa The prayers included the creed and the Lord’s Prayer, in modern renditions more akin to the Rite II versions of the US prayer book.

Between music and prayers, the worship was thus very unfamiliar to me, although it would be quite familiar to parishioners of evangelical Common Cause parishes (including, perhaps, Bp. Robert Duncan’s home parish). The theology was undeniably Christian, so where does it fit in the Anglican tradition?

Conversely, there are Christian churches that still use the great hymns and the Bible, but don’t do creeds, kyries or kneeling. A Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ parish might fit this model. So while traditional liturgy and hymns seemed to come as a package within the Anglican faith, they are clearly separable within the broader realm of biblically-based Christian worship.

This goes straight to the matter of the boundaries of Anglicanism. Rev. Peter Toon — the president of the Prayer Book Society USA and self-appointed arbiter of the Anglican faith — has been on a tear about two things. First, neither the US 1979 prayer book (nor any other experiments authorized by Lambeth 1968) is not a “Book of Common Prayer” but an “Alternative Service Book” because it is not faithful to the 1549 or 1662 BCP of the Church of England. Second, churches not in communion with Canterbury should not call themselves “Anglican.”

Today’s worship convinced me that Toon has it half right: parishes that use the BCP are Anglican, as long as it is a service that would be recognizable to Cranmer. This is a doctrinal rather than institutional definition of Anglicanism, analogous to that of Lutheranism or Calvinism rather than Catholicism. If the institution drifts doctrinally, then the definition should stay with the doctrinal (rather than property) heirs.

In Canada, the 1962 BCP would fit Toon’s definition of a prayer book, while the modernized 1980 Book of Alternative Services would not. Today was not a BCP service — so was it really Anglican?

To argue the point more generally, from an institutional standpoint, why would praise worship Christianity be Anglican? We already have non-denominational evangelical parishes adding the Nicene Creed to modern worship, so how is this any different? Other than having Bishops (and apostolic succession), why are the non-BCP parishes trying to be Anglican rather than Calvary Chapel? (Particularly if Calvary Chapel has more parishes, members and resources than biblical evangelical Anglicans).

If Common Cause eventually throws out the 1979 prayer book and goes back to the 1662 original — with or without the “thees” and “thous” — that would be Toonian liturgy. Presumably (unlike Rite II) that would include a confession of sin prior to communion, no matter how bad that might be for business.

A party, a philosophy, an ideology, a social movement — or a religion — is meaningless without boundaries that define what’s inside and what’s outside. It’s not for me to set the boundaries, or to push out members of the tenuous Common Cause coalition. But if we don’t share a prayer book and a hymnal — in addition to interpretations of scripture — would we really all be one church?

On the last day of Christmas

Jan. 5th is Twelfth Night, and (under most calendars) the final day of the Christmas season.

The Dec. 30 episode of the LCMS radio show Issues Etc. featured a great interview focusing on a particular Christmas hymn, “What Child is This?” The interview was with Dr. Arthur Just, Professor of “Exegetical Theology” at Concordia Theological Seminary (the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod seminary).

The show examined the theology of the words to the hymn by William Chatterton Dix:

What Child is this who, laid to rest
On Mary’s lap is sleeping?
Whom angels greet with anthems sweet,
While shepherds watch are keeping?
This, this is Christ the King,
Whom shepherds guard and angels sing;
Haste, haste, to bring Him laud,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

To paraphrase, Dr. Just said the words remind us of the reality of Christ’s physical birth as an infant, despite being true God.

By extension, these words emphasize Christ’s presence as true man, and thus stand as a rebuttal to the many heresies that claim Jesus was divine but not human.

I have always enjoyed the hymn because it is quite singable, due to the reuse of the 16th century tune Greensleeves. In fact, we sang it last Sunday for the first sunday after Christmas. However, I had not previously appreciated its potential for Christian apologetics.

Not my favorite hymnal

We are traveling to visit family and friends during the 12 Days of Christmas, away from our home parish. For Christmas Day services, we went to former PECUSA parish that's now continuing Anglican under Abp. Gregory Venables. Alas, before they fled PECUSA they had switched to the 1979 BCP and 1982 Hymnal. The Christmas service gave me several reminders of why I dislike the 1982 Hymnal.

The first thing I noticed was the musical typography. When I tried to sing the carols, the 1982 Hymnal used very small note symbols that were impossible to read in the low light of the church. I don't have my library of hymnals in my suitcase, but I checked the 1940 Hymnal at our relative's house and the staff spacing appeared to be 20-25% bigger. (I will have to lay them side-by-side when I get home).

The other problem was the politically correct Christmas carols. Under Hymn #87, Charles Wesley’s Christmas megahit has been further mangled:

Hail, the heaven-born Prince of Peace:
hail, the Sun of Righteousness.
Light and life to all he brings,
risen with healing in his wings.
Mild he lays his glory by,
born that man we no more may die,
born to raise the sons of us from the earth,
born to give them us second birth.
Hark, the herald-angels sing
glory to the new-born King.

In searching for the exact PC words, I found an Englishwoman (and poet) who objected to this abomination as grocery story background music. She should count her blessings: at least in England grocery stores play Christ-mas carols.

The next mangled hymn was in the second verse of Isaac Watts' all-time favorite, Joy to the World! As printed in the 1982 hymnal, the m-bomb has been edited out:

Joy to the world! the Savior reigns;
let men their us our songs employ,
while fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
repeat the sounding joy,
repeat the sounding joy,
repeat, repeat the sounding joy.

This still conveys the original sense of praising God, but to me the imperative seems much weaker since it is directed to the first person plural.

I had forgotten about this bowdlerization of traditional carols, and thus was not prepared to belt out the correct wording when the time came. The congregation seemed unsure as to whether to use the old or the new words, but obviously a generation of Americans is being raised to assume that the PC words are the correct way to sing these hymns.

From Tuesday's selection of six hymns, I had assumed the pattern was that the PECUSA hymnal committee would not change the first verse of a hymn because it was too visible, but were tinkering with the second verses. However, in the final hymn — O Little Town of Bethlehem — the dreaded m-word made it through intact. Verse 2 of Hymn #79 reports

For Christ is born of Mary;
and gathered all above,
while mortals sleep, the angels keep
their watch of wondering love.
O morning stars, together
proclaim the holy birth!
and praises sing to God the King,
and peace to men on earth.

I don't know why this use of the m-word survived but others did not.

All told, this reconfirms my opinion that Hymnal 1982 is an interesting supplemental book, but dubious as a primary pew hymnal.

Mary had a baby

December is the month when Anglicans spend a lot of time talking and thinking about the Virgin Mary, culminating with the celebration of Christmas Day.

Mary's place in Christian history begins with the Annunciation, celebrated in the church calendar in March. This gives us the best Marian hymn of the entire 1940 Hymnal, Hymn #117. The Annunciation is recounted by Luke’s Gospel, in a passage that was a recent recommended reading from from my subscription to the Bible Gateway verse-of-the-day feed,

And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (ESV, Luke 1:30-33)

The Orthodox make a big deal about the Theotokos (“Mother of God”) while Catholics have a strong Marian worship tradition that include a Mary altar, and recitations of “Hail Mary.” My sense is that the Anglicans are somewhere between the Orthodox and Catholics at one end, and the bulk of Protestants at the other.

However, when it comes to Mary the Anglo-Catholics seem to be closer to the Roman Catholic Church than to Reformed or Calvinist traditions or even some forms of Lutheranism. If you visit an Anglo-Catholic parish named “St. Mary,” you would expect this even more so.

Sure enough, during the service at Hollywood’s St. Mary of the Angels earlier this month, there were two distinctly Marian references. One is The Angelus which (according to the pew service booklet) comes at the end of every service at St. Mary’s. I didn’t take the booklet (and thus the exact words) with me, but I know it did include three Hail Marys. The other Marian reference was the hymn “Ye Who Own the Faith of Jesus,” which in its typesetting looks like it was from TEH or Hymns A&M. Each refrain “Hail Mary, hail Mary, hail Mary, full of grace.”

Together, the 14 (3+11) refrains of Hail Mary suggest that St. Mary’s is on the Catholic end of the Anglo-Catholic scale.

Interestingly, Mary is less prominent in traditional carols for these 5-6 weeks of the liturgical calendar. Most of the Advent and (Christian) Christmas carols talk about the coming of Jesus — or, as the billboards say, “Jesus is the reason for the season.” But the child-bearer obviously figures in some of these tellings. In the 1940 Hymnal, a handful of the December hymns reference the Virgin birth: 17, 18, 20, and 41. For some reason, it seems like the oldest hymns are the most devout in their Marian emphasis, as with this most succinct statement (translated for Hymn 18) of the 8th century hymn by St. Germanus: “Behold, a virgin mother brings forth God’s only Son.” Other hymns merely refer to “mother Mary.”

In an odd coincidence, this month as brought two interesting surveys on Christian belief on the Virgin Mary. First blogger Anne Coletta quoted the Spectator (with amplification from a British blogger) which asked leading British Christians the simple question ‘Do you believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ?’ Apparently, some Church of England clergy do not.

Meanwhile 75% of 1,005 American adults surveyed this month by David Barna (quoted by David Virtue) believe the virgin birth to be literal fact. Barna writes:

Of the six Bible stories examined in the survey, this story was the most widely accepted.

Mary’s virgin birth was accepted as literally true by two-thirds of upscale adults (66%) "Upscale" people are those who have completed a four-year college degree and have an annual household income of $75,000 or more.

In a follow up to the Spectator interviews, the leader of the Anglican Communion was interviewed live by Simon Mayo of the BBC on Dec. 19. As transcribed by The Telegraph, he was (as always) somewhat equivocal:

Archbishop of Canterbury: We know his mother's name was Mary, that's one of the things all the gospels agree about, and the two gospels that tell the story have the story of the virgin birth and that's something I'm committed to as part of what I've inherited.

Simon Mayo: You were a prominent part of a Spectator survey in the current issue which headlined' Do you believe in the virgin birth?' there are some people in this survey who would say they were Christian who don't have a problem if you don't believe in the Virgin birth;' how important it is it to believe in that bit?

Archbishop of Canterbury: I don't want to set it as a kind of hurdle that people have to get over before they, you know, be signed up;, but I think quite a few people that as time goes on, they get a sense, a deeper sense of what the virgin birth is about. I would say that of myself. About thirty years ago I might have said I wasn't too fussed about it - now I see it much more as dovetailing with the rest of what I believe about the story and yes.

Contrast that to the unequivocal answers in the Spectator survey by Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali (one of Rowan Williams' most prominent conservative critics in the CoE) and also by Rev. Nicky Gumbel, developer of the Alpha Course.

Of course, Abp. Williams' in the BBC interview got the most headlines for saying the three wise men (and thus presumably the Epiphany) were a legend, but that’s another story.