KNOWING GOD

THROUGH THE LITURGY

by

Peter Toon

The Prayer Book Society Publishing Company

Largo, Florida  1992

Scanned/Word Processed 1999

FOR

Dan and Mickey

Edward and Martha

and all the ESA

folks at Nacogdoches

CONTENTS

Preface

PREFACE

It is a privilege to be invited by the Prayer Book Society to write a book to be published under its name.  To be an Anglican is for me to be committed to that Common Prayer Tradition which began in England in 1549 and continued through a series of editions of Books of Common Prayer throughout the world until the 1960s.

My title recalls a booklet I wrote for Grove Booklets of Nottingham, England, in the early 1970s entitled Knowing God through the Liturgy.  I hope that over the last twenty years I have grown in knowledge and wisdom and that this much longer study is a vast improvement on the previous effort.  My recent writing has been in the area of meditation and contemplation [see, e.g. my Meditating as a Christian (1991); and Spiritual Companions: Introducing 100 Spiritual Classics (1992)] but it has been a joy to switch to the theological reflection upon liturgy.

This book has been written during Lent in my fifteenth and sixteenth months as a resident alien in America.  Its themes have engaged my mind at all times when I was not teaching in class or preaching in various parts of the country.  I hope that though written fairly quickly it has within it the fruit of my thinking over two decades or so since my ordination as a priest of the Church of England.

I must thank my wife, Vita, for her careful reading of the text, and my daughter, Debbie, for her patience with an absent father.  My learned colleague, the Revd Dr Charles Caldwell, has passed on his wisdom to me in frequent conversations, and John Jamieson, an enthusiast for the Common Prayer Tradition has helped me gain access to important sources.  Crews Giles, a student at Nashotah House, has kindly assisted me with word processing and in technical matters while John and Diane Ott in Florida have given me their courteous and professional help in producing the book for publication by the Prayer Book Society.  I must also mention the help and encouragement of Graham Eglington, the National Director of the Prayer Book Society of Canada, and his colleagues.

Of course I take responsibility for what is written and I place it in the hands of God to do with as is pleasing unto Him.

I have written it in such a way that it speaks both to the American Episcopal and Canadian Anglican Churches.  I hope also that friends back in England will appreciate its contents.  The book is dedicated to four East Texans and their friends who gave me gracious hospitality recently.  May our Lord bless them abundantly.

Peter Toon

We arrived in this country on December 31, 1990, and, having missed our connection in New York at JFK for Milwaukee, had to spend New Year’s Eve in the city before leaving very early on January 1, 1991 for Wisconsin, via St Louis.  The culture shock of New York City on New Year’s Eve has been as nothing compared with the culture shocks I’ve felt within the Episcopal Church, which is so different in many ways from the Church of England.

The first shock was to discover that many bishops actually forbade the use of the BCP (1928) and did so even at funerals of people who had used the Book for most if not all of their lives.  My surprise and dismay were increased since it was from the mouths of bishops who I thought to be reasonably conservative that I heard the defence of this action.  I had come from a situation where there were two Books in use, the BCP (1662) and the Alternative Service Book (1980).  In the land of the free and in the Episcopal Church I found that freedom to be a traditional Anglican in public prayer worship and devotion was virtually forbidden.  However, my spirits were raised as I gradually learned that thousands of laity and a few clergy felt as I did and quietly preserved the use of the BCP (1928) in parishes and homes.

I have often asked myself why it is that clergy of all kinds seem so committed to the BCP (1979) and generally support bishops who forbid the use of BCP (1928) in parishes.  Two possible reasons come to mind.  First of all this Book is a genuinely American hook, produced by Americans for Americans after painful and long trial use.  In contrast BCP (1928) is only an American adaptation of a basically British (both English and Scottish) Book.  Thus there is a sense of pride in this all-American production, which was published before the new English ASB (1980), and which may still claim to be the best of the new type of modern Anglican books of services.

In the second place, this Book is comprehensive, in that it provides for, and reflects in its contents and arrangement, a new pluralism.  This provision fits well into a complex society such as America now is, satisfying at a symbolic level a felt religious need to provide for the individual parish but to affirm some unity of the whole denomination.  Thus the Book has both traditional and modern language liturgies, with a decided bias towards the modern: in fact it surprised and pleased many Anglo-Catholic priests and parishes by incorporating as options most of their long standing demands (e.g. the Easter Vigil, provisions for the Reserved Sacrament and auricular Confession).  Further, it gives vast scope for choice in what is used or not used in the services and, with respect to the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist, it presents not one but six Eucharistic Prayers from which to choose.  Then also it seems to avoid that concentration on sin, atonement and justification, on account of which vocal critics had long judged the BCP (1928) as being glued to older theology.

Faced with this breadth and these possibilities, how could any reasonable person oppose or not use such a Book!  Those who cry out for the BCP (1928) ought to realize (it has often been said), that Rite I of the new Book provides for their needs.  Thus let them leave the past and cease to bury their heads in the sand and enter into the modern experiment – otherwise they will get left behind.  (The defence and commendation of the Common Prayer Tradition, as represented in the BCP (1928), will he offered throughout this book by a cumulative argument concerning the nature of Common Prayer, the priority of Holy Scripture, and the nature of Catholic dogma.)

The second shock came upon me gradually and it began at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church at Phoenix in July, 1991.  It was as a result of the realization that there is an equating of the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) with the Holy Spirit by much of the leadership of the Church.  The nature of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of Christ, is presented in Scripture for our study and meditation in such places as John 14–16 and Romans 8.  He is the Spirit of holiness and wholeness, of regeneration and renewal, of goodness and faithfulness, and He leads us in the way of Christ.  What He guides disciples of Jesus to be and to do stands in contrast and opposition to the secular spirit of the world, the raw desires of the flesh and the temptations of the devil.  The Holy Spirit is on no account to be confused with the spirit of the age or the modern spirit – however this contemporary spirit is defined.  I have been profoundly disturbed to hear of such things as the right of human beings to name God as they choose, and the practice of homosexuality and lesbianism, described as examples of the way the Holy Spirit is showing us new values and truths today.  Is this not coming near to that sin our Lord said was not forgivable – sin against the Holy Spirit? (See Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10.)

As I shall explain in the next two chapters this confusion of the Person of the Holy Spirit with the modern, secular spirit is in part possible because of the various doctrines of God being taught in the Church.  These are of such a nature that they give great emphasis to the immanence and omnipresence of God as Spirit and little if any emphasis to the utter transcendence of God, apart from and above the created order.  If God is reduced to the cosmos then it is only a short step to identifying cultural and historical movement as the expression of God as Spirit.

The third shock which also came upon me slowly rather than suddenly was to discover just how deeply the liberal or modernist agenda has penetrated the process of liturgical revision since the 1970s.  In fact the whole Liturgical Movement which began with good intentions seems to have gone off course and to have become the vanguard for the revision of the Faith through the revision of the services we use.  It is to he seen in the way in which BCP (1979) and the Canadian BAS (1985) are being used (e.g. the rubric allowing the omission of the confession of sins being taken as a rule always to omit confession of sins, or to omit the confession for the fifty days following Easter), but also in the plans for further and more radical revised services (to which Prayer Book Studies 30, with its inclusive language liturgies, points).

I recall how concerned C. S. Lewis was about the moves in England to update the Liturgy and wrote:

I would ask the clergy to believe that we, laymen, are more interested in orthodoxy and less interested in liturgiology as such than they can easily imagine...  What we laymen fear is that the deepest doctrinal issues should he tacitly and implicitly settled by what seem to he, merely changes in liturgy.  A man who is wondering whether the fare set before him is food or poison is not reassured by being told that the course is now restored to its traditional place in the menu or that the tureen is of the Sarum [i.e. old Salisbury] pattern.  We laymen are ignorant and timid. Our lives are ever in our hands, the avenger of blood is on our heels and of each of us his soul may this night he required.  Can you blame us if the reduction of grave doctrinal issues to merely liturgical issues fills us with something like terror?  (God in the Dock, 1970, p.332.)

On the next page Professor Lewis has a further word on the relation of liturgy and belief.  "I submit that the relation is healthy when liturgy expresses the belief of the Church, morbid when liturgy creates in the people by suggestion beliefs which the Church has not publicly professed, taught and believed."  As we go on our journey in this book (especially chapter ten) we shall notice some of these grave doctrinal issues being covered up through claims that the new lex orandi is the new lex credendi (the new law of prayer is the new law of faith, for which see chapter 10).

I also recall the words of the late W. H. Auden, who took part in some of the early work on revising the Psalter in the 1960s.  He saw a wonderful tradition of prayer-language slipping away in the euphoria of revision and wrote in his Commonplace Book:

The Episcopal Church...seems to have gone stark, raving mad...  And why?  The Roman Catholics [after Vatican II have had to start from scratch, and as any of them with a feeling for language will admit, they have made a cacophonous horror of the mass.  Whereas we had the extraordinary good fortune in that our Prayer Book was composed at exactly the right historical moment.  The English language had already become more or less what it is today...but the ecclesiastics of the 16th century still possessed a feeling for the ritual and ceremonious which today we have almost certainly lost.  (A Certain World, 1970, p.85.)

My concern is primarily with the doctrine and spirituality but I fully recognize that these must he expressed in excellent English.

Therefore I write this hook as a way of saying that I am an Anglican, that I want to be a biblical and catholic Anglican, and that I see no hope of being an honest Anglican only within the context provided by further developments of the revisionist tradition of liturgy contained in the BCP (1979) and the BAS (1985).  Therefore the witness of the Prayer Book Societies in the USA, Canada, England and elsewhere is necessary.  Classic Anglicanism in which sacred Scripture has central place, and where truly Common Prayer, with its unique asceticism and spirituality arising from the prayerful reading of Scripture and receiving of Holy Communion, must not be allowed to disappear for want of effort!

If I were asked for a biblical text to set forth what I have to say, I would choose the word of the Lord through the prophet, Jeremiah.  "Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (6:16).  I call upon Anglicans to survey the history and experience of the Churches to which they belong, to contemplate and think seriously about the Common Prayer Tradition, and then to compare the old with the new.  I hope they will choose the old way, not to bury their heads in the sands of the past but with the intention of working to see its perfection for the Anglican Way for today and tomorrow.  For, in the new way upon which parts of the Anglican Communion are travelling I do not see any long-term "rest for souls."

At the moment it is just possible, I believe, by the judicious use of the new Books to be an Anglican in terms of biblical faith and public worship; but the process of revision which seems only to have just started will surely make that possibility an impossibility soon - unless a halt is called to further revision and doctrinal change, and unless we put the whole process into some kind of reverse gear, by rediscovering the primacy of biblical faith.

My pessimism concerning the new mix-and-match tradition in modern Anglicanism stands in contrast to that confidence which once was so widespread with respect to the Common Prayer Tradition.  Here is what J.P.K. Henshaw, Bishop of Rhode Island wrote in 1831:

Among the many causes of gratitude to Almighty God which distinguish our lot as Protestant Episcopalians, it is not one of the least that we are favored with a scriptural and established LITURGY; which is entitled to the warmest commendation, not only as a directory for public worship, but also as a standard and preservative of sound doctrine.

The Prayer Book has been beautifully and appropriately styled "the daughter of the Bible"; and, probably, there is no other work of human composition which has embodied so much of the substance and spirit of the heavenly Oracles.  Extracts from the Bible, in the form of Gospels, Epistles and Psalter, constitute the greater part of the volume – and throughout the collects and prayers the spirit of the divine Word breathes and glows and animates the whole.  What can be more chaste and spiritual than its devotional services?  What more humble and meek than its penitential confessions?  What more fervent and comprehensive than its acts of intercession?  What more full, ardent and seraphic than its adorations and thanksgivings?  How many of the followers of Christ in this day have felt their hearts glow with heavenly ardor – as if touched with a live coal from the altar – and experienced the sublime delights of spiritual communion in the use of those prayers and praises in which saints and martyrs of every age have poured forth their devotions to the Lord?  And eternity only can disclose the multitude of instances in which the use of them has alleviated the pains of disease, assuaged the fears of the mariner amidst the terrors of the ocean, cheered the desolations of prison and softened the bed of death.

The LITURGY is entitled to veneration not only as a devotional work but as a compendium of sound Christian theology.  All the fundamental and important doctrines of the Gospel are interwoven throughout its various offices; and while our congregations statedly use it they will he secured against the introduction of gross and flagrant heresy.  (The Communicant’s Guide, 1831, p.3.)

The Bishop goes on to speak of the "Order for the administration of the Lord’s Supper" as being nothing less than the condensing of "the excellencies of the ancient liturgies" into a wonderful English liturgy.

In this book I shall be saying something similar to what Bishop Henshaw and many others have said about the Common Prayer Tradition, but with less eloquence.  However, my primary interest is in showing that a major purpose of Common Prayer is to enable believing sinners to know God in a personal way through corporate worship.

Our God is the LORD and we are made in His image and after His likeness to be His adoring creatures not only in this age but for all eternity.  Therefore to begin to know Him now in corporate worship is to prepare to know Him in heaven in the Liturgy of the angels and saints.

[Note.  To those who wish to reflect further upon the religious, liturgical and theological divide in the Episcopal Church (as well in other similar American Churches) I commend James Davidson Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, Basic Books, 1991.]

The tradition of an English Book of Common Prayer began in 1549 and passed through important new editions in 1552 and 1662 in England, with later revised editions in the English-speaking world of the British Empire and the nations which evolved from it.  There were of course editions in foreign languages as well, especially for churches founded by missionary endeavor.  In North America the last revised editions which embodied this Common Prayer Tradition were those of 1928 in the USA and 1962 in Canada.  Because of this shared tradition by world-wide Anglicanism it was possible until fairly recently to go to Anglican worship anywhere in the world and soon feel at home with the forms of divine service.

In the 1990s we are experiencing a growing variety of forms of worship not only in different countries but also within countries.  This variety is usually based upon authorized books of prayer which still use the title or claim the concept of "Common Prayer" (e.g. The Book of Common Prayer, 1979, in the USA and The Alternative Service Book, 1985, in Canada).  However, these Books of varying titles have begun a new tradition of public worship and prayer for Anglicanism not only in North America but also around the world (cf. the ASB, 1980, in England).

Their creators have often claimed and still claim to be restoring valuable ancient forms and ways to modern worship without changing the basic doctrine.  However, their primary thrust seems to be that of encouraging a seemingly endless variety of possibilities into divine worship and thereby introducing a dull mediocrity into worship.  In this way they claim to speak to contemporary persons in modern language.  Gone is one excellent form of words and in its place are several alternatives, none of which is aesthetically memorable or theologically satisfying.  Gone also is the clarity of biblical and patristic teaching on fundamental matters and in its place is at best a fuzzy or careless presentation of certain basic doctrines.  Further, while it is argued that this modern way involves the participation of the laity (as the people of God) in worship much more than was the case in former years, the usual position in practice is that the priest becomes the expert to choose between the variety of possible forms of service in the Book.

Of course I am not claiming that the classic tradition of Anglican Common Prayer was or is perfect.  I am not saying that the American BCP (1928) and Canadian BCP (1962) would not benefit from some wise and gentle revision and from a new preface to explain the logic of saving and sanctifying faith on which this type of worship is based and from which it proceeds.  It is possible that some of the new services introduced into the recent Prayer Books (e.g. Easter services) could be incorporated, adapting them to the theology and ethos of the Common Prayer Tradition.  Then provision could he made for the use of a revised Psalter, the kind, for example, authorized in England in 1966, and called The Revised Psalter, which had both C. S. Lewis and T. S. Eliot on its revision committee.

However, the major point is that the Books of 1928 and 1962 can he improved or their contents adjusted for contemporary use because their basic tradition is sound and well tried in all important respects.  Since the foundation is solid there is possibility for a limited number of optional additions here and there as long as they are done in the same ethos and doctrine as the original.  The grandeur and glory of the tradition of Common Prayer is that there has been a shared, excellent form of worship to he used by all who belong to a particular branch of Christendom – in this case the Anglican Way.  The excellence is not only in the form of words but also in the way this tradition reflects the ethos and doctrine of Holy Scripture as well as the classic, patristic, Trinitarian doctrinal and devotional heritage of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

In contrast, the BCP (1979) and the BAS (1985) were intended, at least by some of their advocates, to create a different and opposed tradition of Christian worship.  In justice, they may be called revisionist Books for, if widely or universally used, their impact will be to destroy the received, classic tradition of Common Prayer which has been at the very center of the genius of Anglicanism.  In fact this destruction is well advanced already in North America, since a generation now exists for whom the tradition of authentic Common Prayer has not been a living experience.

The charge that these new Books are revisionist can be substantiated on three major grounds.  First of all, as we have been noting, they introduce a new concept and practice of public worship.  Out of the church door goes a common or shared form and in the door comes a variety which is only intended to be a stage on the way to more variety.  Already Liturgical Commissions have produced and even now they continue to produce more experimental forms of public worship.  Soon there will he only a loose-leaf book of possible options.

One important development since 1979 has been the move to produce services based on the principle of inclusivism with non-excluding language.  Already in the Psalter of BCP (1979) this principle had been utilized, but Prayer Book Studies 30 (1990), given further limited approval by the General Convention of 1991, is an example of this novelty: with the continuing trial use of its inclusivist liturgies a further nail is hammered into the coffin of the Common Prayer Tradition and in the authority of Holy Scripture in the Church.  For, if God he the LORD who reveals Himself to us through the words of Scripture, then God may be said to name Himself: as mere sinful creatures we cannot choose to name Him but we address Him after His own self-naming and direction.  I shall return to this theme in chapter eleven below.

In the second place, there is a definite weakening of basic Christian doctrine in the new Books.  In fact it is not claiming too much to say that there is evidence of a definite move to revise Christian doctrine in some places within them.  One does not have to look very far with a trained eye to see that the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the glorious Person and saving Work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the nature of God’s salvation have all been either modified or revised.  Many good and faithful Episcopalians have not noticed this doctrinal change because they have in charity assumed that the BCP (1979) has the same doctrine as that of the BCP (1928) and have read classical doctrine into the words they have read.

Take for example the doctrine of the Trinity.  This doctrine has been preserved in the old form in the Gloria ("Glory he to the Father..." etc) used at the end of the Canticles and Psalms in the BCP (1979) as well as in the Blessing, given at the end of public worship by the bishop or priest.  It has been lost, however, in other places, most obviously in the opening Blessing of God in Rites I and II of the Eucharist.  Instead of "Blessed be God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" (for our God is One God in Three Persons) we are given a formula which is a form of the ancient heresy of Modalism (God is One hut has three names).  The definite articles are left out and thus instead of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" we are given "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

Another obvious example of change is in the use of a revised form of the Apostles’ Creed.  Though in the original Latin and in the long-used English translation the virginal conception of our Lord is clearly set forth in the words, "He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary," the revised form in Morning Prayer Rite II has the words "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary."  The aim of the new words is to allow people who do not believe in the miraculous conception of Jesus to think of His conception as if it were like that of Isaac or John the Baptist – normal but special.  Such an interpretation is, of course, heresy.  In fact, as you survey the theological content of the BCP (1979) you notice a general tendency to treat and present Jesus as the Perfect Man in whom the divine presence dwells.  That is, He becomes for all of us a supreme example of God’s presence and as well of our response to God in faith.  To think of Jesus only as a revelation of God and as a perfect example to us is surely something short of confessing Him as "my Lord and my God."

Further changes are made later in the Apostles’ Creed when the "descent into hell" is made into another less important journey ("a descent to the dead") and the adjective "almighty" which follows "right hand of the Father" is omitted.  Then serious changes are made to the translation of the Nicene Creed as that is printed in Rite II of the Eucharist (and taken from the International Commission on Liturgical Texts).  I urge my readers to compare the old translation "I believe..." with the new one "We believe..." in Rites I and II.  There are so many significant changes and it is inappropriate to examine them all here.  I simply note that to say "we believe" is not the same as saying "I believe".  We are there together at Holy Communion as the Body of Christ and each believer who is present is a member of that Body: thus each of us has to respond to the God who has revealed and given Himself to us: therefore, the right response is "Lord, I believe!"  Though the members of the Council of Nicea composed the Creed and said together against heretics, "We [as a body standing together] believe" they each confessed the same faith in the Eucharist in personal terms, "I believe" (as the ancient Liturgies of St Basil and St Chrysostom show).

Thirdly, there is a definite change in the doctrine and use of the Bible.  Take, for example, the translation of Psalms 1:1 and 51:6 in the Psalter of 1928 and 1962 on the one hand and that of 1979 and 1985 on the other.  In 1:1 the original speaks of the blessed man (male and singular): this is faithfully translated by the old Psalter and by the Revised Standard Version and other versions of the Bible; but, in the American 1979 and the Canadian 1985 Psalters (which are virtually identical) we have a third person neuter, "happy are they..."  To make matters worse there is no note anywhere in the American 1979 Psalter to let the faithful know that they have been given an inclusivist translation which is informed by the ideology of anti-sexism.  In contrast, the Canadian Psalter does have a preface which recognizes the inclusivist nature of the translation and allows the use of other versions.

Then if you compare Psalm 51 in the old and new translations you find that the full extent of the nature of sin is diminished in the 1979 Psalter.  The human condition of sin as inherited from others and then personally exercised, is replaced in 1979 by a notion of individual freedom of choice as exercised only from one’s mother’s womb.  Regrettably this diminution of the nature of sin harmonizes with the reduced doctrine of sin presented in the rest of the Books.

The Lectionary which accompanies BCP (1979) has certain attractive features to it but it also has some pernicious aspects.  There is a selective dropping of those sections of Scripture which obviously stand in definite opposition to the insights of the revised religion – this is particularly so with respect to the Letters of Paul.  Where the modern mind judges him to be passing on rabbinic rather than specifically Christian teaching on the relation between the male and female or the immorality of the practice of homosexuality then that rabbinic teaching is left out (see e.g. the omission of parts of Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11 & 14).

To some people the above examples of revision of doctrine may appear trivial and of little consequence.  Yet to those who are familiar with the history of Christian doctrine and spirituality they do represent important changes or deviations which will have evangelistic and pastoral repercussions.  Therefore if truth means anything at all these changes must be made explicit by those who care for truth.

My primary purpose is not to attack the new approach to and ways of worship which the Anglican Communion is being increasingly led to experience through its new Books of Prayer.  Rather it is to show that the old tradition of Common Prayer, despite its seemingly old-fashioned look, is an excellent way to know God, the living God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in public worship; further it is to recognize that from this knowing, trusting, and loving Him comes the serving and obeying of Him in daily life.  However, to develop my theme and substantiate my arguments it will he necessary from time to time to contrast the old and the new ways; thus there will be some further criticism of the new ways.  I do not apologize for this.  It is unavoidable if it be the case that the modern way (as I have come to see it) is in fact truly inferior as a spiritual offering and sacrifice to God in holy worship.  My concern is that at the level of revealed truth and devotion there be genuine knowing of God as our Father and Saviour.

The seeking after God and the knowledge of Him is the most deeply fulfilling journey upon which we can embark.  We need a sure road to travel on, an accurate map to use and a faithful guide to direct us in our search for the living God and fellowship with Him.  I believe that wise people will take that road, use that map and employ that guide which have proved themselves over the centuries to achieve what they promise.  Modern forms of transport may he better than older ones: modern houses may be warmer than older ones; but, knowing God is not like using transport or buying houses.  In this human quest we need to pay attention to the accumulated wisdom and tested practice of the centuries: this is more likely to lead us where we want to go than are modern insights and untested ways.

While the old way necessarily bears traces of the historical and cultural situation in which it was first put together, it has been so pruned and finely tuned over the centuries that it has achieved the position of being immediately adaptable and available to people who wish to take the call to Christian prayer seriously.

My plan for this book is governed by two major considerations.  First, I want to strengthen the commitment of those who now use the BCP (1928 or 1962) and, secondly, I desire to encourage people who have not used a classic BCP to use one for the first time, if not in public then for their personal prayer and devotion.  Then there are also those who probably once used it and, being overtaken by the new ways, ceased to use it.  I hope they will pick up where they left off and do so with enthusiasm.  Therefore I seek to explain first of all what is unique about knowing God and how this knowledge can only truly be received and experienced in a Liturgy where there is faithfulness to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and to His self-revelation recorded in Holy Scripture.

Having shown what it is to know God both personally and corporately, I proceed to comment on the major services and provisions of the Common Prayer Tradition in order to show how the knowing of God is presented and achieved in each (e.g. through saying Daily Prayer, reading Holy Scripture, receiving Holy Communion on the Lord’s Day and participating in the Church Year).  Finally, I offer my thoughts on such topics as inclusive language and the doctrinal content of knowing the Lord our God.

Through this process I show that Liturgy (the corporate worship of Almighty God through written services of worship for Baptism, Confirmation, Daily Prayer and Holy Communion) is truly the work (ergon) which the laos (people) of God do before God.  Liturgy has to do with people and work – God’s believing people engaged in God’s holy work, the work He has called them to offer to Him.  In Hebrews 8:6 the word liturgy is used of what Jesus Christ Himself is now doing for His Church in heaven before the Father: "Christ has obtained a ministry [liturgy-leitourgia] which is as much more excellent than the old ministry [of the high priest] as the covenant He mediates is better [than the old Mosaic covenant], since it is enacted on better promises."  The Church at worship is united within the new covenant to the liturgy of Christ, His precious death and glorious resurrection, His ascension into heaven and His ministry there as our King, High Priest and Prophet.  In the Common Prayer Tradition this union with Christ is expected, anticipated and wonderfully achieved by the grace of God; and to this, I believe, millions in the Church Expectant or Triumphant now testify! Thanks he to God.

All in all my aim is to show that by God’s good providence there is within the Common Prayer Tradition a logic of faith, derived from the New Testament.  This is intended to operate both corporately in God’s people gathered as Christ’s Body and in individual persons in their relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  If this logic of faith is disturbed or, worse still, repudiated, then the Common Prayer Tradition as a biblical tradition is lost and great, maybe irreprable, harm done to the Anglican Way.

Our subject is an exalted one – knowing God, the LORD, Himself, not His creatures but knowing Him, our Creator and Redeemer.  In what we call His high priestly prayer Jesus prayed that they (His disciples) "might know thee, the only true God" (John 17:3).  To know the heavenly Father is the highest of privileges and the greatest of experiences.  In order to begin to understand what such knowing is all about we need first of all to spend a little time reflecting upon what we mean when we claim, "I know him or her" or "I know this or that thing."

To know my next-door neighbor is a more complex business than to know a place, book, language or even an animal.  I can know a book or a language through learning it and a place such as Pikes Peak in Colorado by visiting and climbing it.  I can know a dog by being its owner over a period of time and exercising, feeding, training and being dependent upon it.  If it were as easy to know human persons as it is to know things and animals the world would probably be a different place!

I believe that there is a tendency in all of us to boast about important people with whom we have been acquainted.  For example, I might claim in a conversation, "I know Margaret Thatcher."  This claim could he based on my living on the same street as she did and having had several conversations with her over the garden wall.  Or you might claim that you know President Bush because you belonged to the same social club as he did twenty years ago and chatted with him at the bar.

When we speak of knowing a person we may he referring to minimal or maximum knowledge of him or her for there are degrees and depths of knowledge of persons.  For example, I know about a lot of people through watching them on the TV screen and seeing their pictures and profiles in the newspapers and magazines.  I know what they look like, how they speak and what kinds of things they do in their career and public lives.  With few, if any, of these people do I have any personal relationship.  I merely know about them.  And even if what I know about them is a lot, it is still the case that I only know about them.  Though I may feel I know one or two of them in a personal way the truth of the matter is that I really and truly only know about them for I have no personal relationship with any of them.

Further, I can say much the same about most of the people I meet day by day at places where I work, enjoy leisure and do my shopping.  This also probably applies to most people in my church.  Certainly I may know a lot about some of them for I may carefully study their personality, facial expressions, words, dress, relationships and lifestyles; but, it remains true that I only know about them.

However, there are certain persons whom I really know.  Not only do I know about them but I have such a personal relationship with them that I actually do truly know them rather than merely know about them.  This is possible because each of them has in different ways and by various means disclosed his or her inner life, thoughts and being to me.  Usually this personal knowing works both ways through friendship or within family ties or in happy marriage.  You reveal yourself to me and I open up myself to you – not all at once but gradually and as circumstances allow.  However, it can be the case that I as a pastor am allowed to know a person because he or she has freely disclosed his or her inner life confidentially to me in order to seek my help.

When we speak of knowing God we have in mind, I think, both knowing about Him and knowing Him in personal friendship.  We need to know something about God, Creator and Redeemer, in order to accept His gracious call to enter a personal relationship of faith in Him and love of Him.  However, if we take the "Ministration of Holy Baptism" seriously then we must rejoice in the fact that God places infants in a right relationship with Himself from the time of their baptism.  Then within this growing personal friendship with the Lord in the fellowship of the church the child learns about this God in whom he trusts.

Let us first reflect upon what it is to know about God.  As Anglicans and Episcopalians our knowledge of God is the same as that of the whole Church, Eastern and Western, Catholic and Protestant, for we all trace our history back to the same source, the apostolic Church.  This knowledge is given the technical name of "classical Christian theism" by theologians in order to distinguish it from other ways of stating a claimed knowledge of God.  For example, we do not accept the ever-popular doctrine of pantheism, the doctrine that God is equivalent to nature and that the natural order is either God or the external expression of God.  There have always been pantheists in western culture, poets like Walt Whitman for example.  Anglicans who take their Bible and Prayer Book seriously do not believe that God is the equivalent of nature.  They confess that He is the Lord of nature.

Further, we do not accept deism, a doctrine of God popular in the eighteenth century both in America and Europe, and intimately associated with the Enlightenment.  Deism is the teaching that God created the world and then left it all alone to get on with its existence.  That is, like a great clockmaker, He made a clock and then wound it up to let it get on with the job of keeping time.  Rejecting this approach Anglicans believe that God the Creator is also God the Sustainer and Redeemer: God cares for the world that He made ex nihilo (out of nothing); and by His mighty word He keeps it in existence and order moment by moment.  This belief is expressed often through the use of the Psalter in the Daily Office (e.g. Ps.29), as well as in the Canticle, Venite, at Morning Prayer.  So what is theism?  It is the belief in one God who is the Creator of the world; He is infinite, self-existent, incorporeal, eternal, immutable, impassible, simple, omniscient and omnipotent.  These words are here used in their technical or philosophical meaning.  A shorter answer is to say that God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.  A simpler way to answer the question is to say that theism is belief in one God who totally transcends (is above and wholly distinct from) the world that He made and who is perfect in wisdom, power and love.

Historically the two chief rivals to theism have been polytheism (the belief in many gods, as in ancient Rome and Greece and in popular Hinduism today) and pantheism (the view that the world itself is divine because it is the self-expression of God’s very being).  Today there is also a sophisticated form of pantheism called panentheism which teaches that the self-development of God is inextricably connected with the evolution of the universe.  This is usually expressed through the process philosophy of the late A.N.Whitehead which sees God as constantly changing and growing in perfection through including within His being the experiences of the world – which may he called "God's body" (as in some feminist theology).

Deism, to which we referred above, is a rational form of theism and still is accepted and/or taught by those who do not think that God actually involves Himself in or acts within the world.  It is probably fair to say that some old-style biblical scholars who reject the intervention of God through miracles are deists.  (Do you remember the collection of essays entitled The Myth of God Incarnate, published in 1977?  Much of the thought in that hook arose from or was an expression of deism.  See, further, David Brown, The Divine Trinity, 1985, pp. 3-50.)

Modern living forms of theism include Judaism and Islam.  There is of course a profound continuity between Jewish and Christian theism for the first disciples were Jewish theists who were wholly committed to the LORD, their God.  Yet, through their encounter with Jesus, they eventually went forth gladly and commitedly to baptize converts to Christianity "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."  They moved from the confession of One God to the confession of One God in Trinity.

Therefore what distinguishes classical Christian theism from any other form of theism is that Christians believe, teach and confess that God eternally exists not only as the One and Only God but as One God in Three Persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Further, Christians also hold that the eternal Son became incarnate as Jesus, the Christ, and that He alone is the means of their salvation.  Thus it may rightly be claimed that the "extra" beliefs concerning God which Christians hold and Jews do not share are based wholly on divine revelation, as that is received in and through Jesus Himself.  The confession that Jesus is Lord and that Jesus is the Son of God incarnate lead on in the life of the Church to the confession that the eternal God is One God in Three Persons.  Under the general guidance of the Holy Spirit Christian experience of God in worship and in daily life, together with reflection upon the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, led to the doctrine of the Trinity.  The doctrine arose to explain the vital, spiritual and moral experience of God within the fellowship of Christians, for the Church knew and worshipped the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

Of course the confession of the Holy Trinity has to be stated with great care for it can he so easily misunderstood.  For example, it can be carelessly stated and taken to mean that God is One God with three major names (Father, Son and Spirit) – this was called Modalism or Sahellianism in the Early Church.  (Regrettably this error seems to have entered into the BCP 1979 at several significant places – e.g. the opening Blessing of the Eucharist in Rites I & II.)  Or the Trinity can be taken to mean that there are three equal Gods called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  This is tritheism.  Then there is the concept of the Trinity as a descending hierarchy of three related but not equal expressions of deity.  First is the Father; at a lower level of deity is the Son and at an even lower level is the Holy Spirit.  Thus only the Father is really God – the Son and the Spirit are superior angels.  The fact that these pitfalls are there ought to cause us to be thankful that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is stated with great care and accuracy in the Common Prayer Tradition, especially where that contains the Quicunque Vult, or The Athanasian Creed.

A typical Anglican devotion for Trinity Sunday will be something like this:

Come let us adore the Sacred Trinity, Three Persons and One God.

To Thee, the eternal Father, made by none;

To Thee, the increated Son, begotten by the Father alone;

To Thee, the blessed Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son;

To this one, holy, consubstantial and undivided Trinity, be ascribed all power and wisdom and glory, now and for ever:

Holy holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.

Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty of thy glory.

Further, the constant appearance of heresies and errors ought to make us keen to learn sound and edifying knowledge about the God whom we worship.

There is much to know about God, for He is like a glorious, everlastingly inexhaustible Fountain from which we drink and continue to drink.  He is super-essential Being and the more we know about Him the more we realize that there is to know.  Knowledge of the LORD as the Holy Trinity is fundamental and without this knowledge we can make no progress in worship and devotion; but, there are many other aspects to the knowledge of God that we need to know in order that we might grow in our personal relationship with Him.

For this reason we study and meditate upon the Holy Scriptures.  Anglicans have always claimed that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the first source of our knowledge of God.  For the Anglican who devoutly follows and uses the Lectionary there is a daily immersion in the vital source of our knowledge of the Lord our God.  Further, the major aspects of the whole doctrine of God as that is provided in the Bible are woven into the wording of the various services provided in the Common Prayer tradition.  For example, the teaching that God is the dynamic Creator and Sustainer of the universe and that by His providence He works all things for the purpose of His glory is clearly and reverentially stated in the Collects and Prayers.

Over the centuries Christians have learned about God from being taught the Creed and the Catechism, by hearing and reading the Bible, and by accepting the teaching about God which appears in the text of the Prayer Book.  This has been augmented by sermons, by further teaching, by home study groups and personal study and reflection.  In the daily services of Morning and Evening Prayer there is the requirement that the participants confess their faith in the words of the Apostles’ Creed – "I believe in God the Father almighty..."  In the Order for Holy Communion there is also the requirement that the Nicene or the Apostles’ Creed he used.  The Nicene, like the Apostles’, begins in a personal way "I believe in one God..." and goes on to state with a marvelous economy of words what I called above, classical Christian theism – Trinitarian Theism.  There is yet a further official confession of faith in Anglicanism which fell into disuse from the eighteenth century onwards in America but which is, to my mind, a moving and succinct statement of the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Person of Christ.  I referred to it above as the Quicunque Vult or the Athanasian Creed: it has an integral place in the BCP (1662) of the Church of England.

In saying "I believe..." each Christian present is speaking for himself and stating the faith of the Church.  It is a confession that points not only to knowledge and beliefs about God but also to a truly personal relation with God the Father through God the Incarnate Son.  The Creed may be seen as the response of the believer to the revelation of and salvation from God in Jesus Christ given to each of us.  On the basis of what God has said and done, I say to Him, "Lord I believe..."  Thus something of importance is lost in modern Anglican services where the Creed begins, "We believe..."

This Trinitarian Theism expressed in the Nicene Creed informs the whole approach to and content of worship.  Even though it is only stated explicitly here and there (e.g. in the Gloria at the end of the singing or recital of each psalm and in the final Blessing) the knowledge of God the Holy Trinity is present as the great unifying doctrine and dogma of the whole Common Prayer Tradition.  Knowledge about God is intended to be the expression of personal knowing of God in the services of worship, be they the Daily Office or the Administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.  We are to worship the Father through and in the Son by and in the Holy Spirit.  The trinitarian structure of the services therefore exists as the vehicle for our faith-knowledge of God as Holy Trinity so that we may both pray together and as individual persons in common (i.e. genuine communal) prayer.  Joined to Christ Jesus in faith and through the Holy Spirit, we join in His prayer, which He offers perpetually for His brethren at the right hand of the Father (Rom. 8:34).  We lift up our hearts and through the Holy Spirit we are united to Him as our Mediator and High Priest.  He is the Head and we are the members of His Body and therefore being in Him we are united to the Holy Trinity.

Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity: We beseech thee, that thou wouldest keep us stedfast in this faith, and evermore defend us from all adversities, who livest and reignest one God, world without end.  Amen.

In the words of the Quicunque Vult: "the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity."

Next Section            Home Here            SAW Home