The Sign of the Cross and Anglicanism

[Paidiske]

Okay.

The point is, if you do exactly what the service in Common Worship and its rubrics allow, that's authorised. If you tweak it, beyond what the text and the rubrics allow, it's not authorised.

Now I'm not throwing stones either way. But given that you've claimed your church never uses an unauthorised form, I'm having trouble understanding how that gels with a non-liturgical spirit-led form.

Does what I'm saying make sense?

 

[seeking.IAM]

It seems to me an important concept is "differentiation." That is to ask the question, What is it about Anglican worship that differentiates it from other denominational offerings? I venture to say had I wandered into a different Anglican church as some describe, I might have remained a Methodist. I think trying to be all things to all people is a mistake. Decide what you're good at and do that one thing really well.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Okay.

The point is, if you do exactly what the service in Common Worship and its rubrics allow, that's authorised. If you tweak it, beyond what the text and the rubrics allow, it's not authorised.

Now I'm not throwing stones either way. But given that you've claimed your church never uses an unauthorised form, I'm having trouble understanding how that gels with a non-liturgical spirit-led form.

Does what I'm saying make sense?

I don’t think I claimed that my church never uses an unauthorised service - hey, we have bereavement services, healing services, songs of praise, and Messy church. But I also think that our four regular Sunday services align very well to Common Worship, in spirit and truth.

But I am just a church warden, so what would I know.

 

[Paidiske]

I took that to be what you meant by this post: Liturgical Development That evangelicals showed their obedience to their bishops by only using authorised liturgies.

Clearly the Australian and English contexts have some significant differences. One thing I have definitely noticed here is the generational shift I've mentioned; a big difference in style and approach between older and younger evangelical clergy. If that's absent in England, it suggests that perhaps that shift happened earlier there, so that even older clergy now were caught up in it... and that's interesting to me, too, because I wonder what it is that accounts for that shift in the first place.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

It seems to me an important concept is "differentiation." That is to ask the question, What is it about Anglican worship that differentiates it from other denominational offerings? I venture to say had I wandered into a different Anglican church as some describe, I might have remained a Methodist. I think trying to be all things to all people is a mistake. Decide what you're good at and do that one thing really well.

This is something I struggle to agree with.

The Anglican faith is the faith of the original and undivided church. It is our duty (and joy) to minister to everyone who lives in our parishes, and that means appealing to all of their needs and sensibilities. We don’t have the luxury of a choice that free churches have.

One important thing to remember is that Sunday worship is a small part of what we are and what we do. The other six days of the week are increasingly important in reaching out to all members of our communities.

 

[Paidiske]

I would struggle to agree with the idea that it's our duty to appeal to every sensibility of every member of the public. Some things are just wrong-headed or bad, or perhaps fine but not who we are. But then, in Australia we're not Established (nor are we the biggest church, that's the Catholics), so our sense of our place in our society is a bit different.

But I do agree that the time we spend connecting with our communities outside our worship services is where a lot more of our energy and focus should be.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I think we should take care to prevent the tail from wagging the dog.

 

[Shropshire Anglican]

In the CofE Common Worship and the BCP is authorised for use in services, as are some alternative services such as Lindisfarne etc. Within that though churches are allowed by their Bishop to use other forms of worship. We use an Agape service which is a form of communion but which isn't recognised as such by the CofE. You tend to find this more in evangelical CofE churches than high churches.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I think we should take care to prevent the tail from wagging the dog.

You have to meet people where they to keep church relevant, and to preach the gospel anew in each generation.

 

[seeking.IAM]

You have to meet people where they to keep church relevant, and to preach the gospel anew in each generation.

We will disagree on this point. Church has always been relevant and needs nothing else to make it so.

I have seen this in many churches which have abandoned liturgy for this or that new innovative service. They say let's add a praise band, or a projection screen for multimedia supported sermons and that will draw in the young people. Only it didn't. And they chased their own tails trying to grow. Only they didn't. They dwindled to a shadow of their former selves. And one old guy left to become Anglican. I hope he won't have to leave to become Orthodox who have changed little since 1054.

 

[Symphorian]

In the CofE worship and doctrine have always been closely linked. Canon A5 declares that the doctrine of the CofE is 'grounded in Holy Scriptures...in particular such doctrine is to be found in the 39 Articles...the BCP and the Ordinal'.

For over 350 years now the 1662 BCP has been at the centre of our worship, its place in the on-going life of the church is guaranteed in law. The introduction of the Alternative Service Book in 1980 introduced much new material, largely in contemporary language. This was a major step in liturgical revision and set in motion a program of work by the Liturgical Commission which ultimately led to the publication Common Worship in 2000.

The development of this new liturgical material has also seen changes in the way the CofE, through the work of the General Synod, undertakes liturgical business. This has allowed greater variation and flexibility in worship whilst safeguarding the doctrine and teaching of the church. We now have two categories of material available for use in Common Worship - authorised and commended material. Authorised material included prayers of penitence, Creeds and Eucharistic prayers which by their nature reflect the doctrine and teaching of the church. Only authorised forms of these texts may be used in main services on a regular basis. Commended material has been approved by the House of Bishops for occasional use in specific situations or occasions. Much of this material is seasonal or takes account for the need for more appropriate material for use on specific occasions or with specific groups of people.

As Naomi pointed has already pointed out, Common Worship allows for a great deal of flexibility. When I trained as a Commissioned Lay Minister in the CofE we were actively encouraged to explore new and different ways of 'doing church' - to quote Naomi "You have to meet people where they to keep church relevant, and to preach the gospel anew in each generation."

 

[Naomi4Christ]

In the CofE worship and doctrine have always been closely linked. Canon A5 declares that the doctrine of the CofE is 'grounded in Holy Scriptures...in particular such doctrine is to be found in the 39 Articles...the BCP and the Ordinal'.

For over 350 years now the 1662 BCP has been at the centre of our worship, its place in the on-going life of the church is guaranteed in law. The introduction of the Alternative Service Book in 1980 introduced much new material, largely in contemporary language. This was a major step in liturgical revision and set in motion a program of work by the Liturgical Commission which ultimately led to the publication Common Worship in 2000.

The development of this new liturgical material has also seen changes in the way the CofE, through the work of the General Synod, undertakes liturgical business. This has allowed greater variation and flexibility in worship whilst safeguarding the doctrine and teaching of the church. We now have two categories of material available for use in Common Worship - authorised and commended material. Authorised material included prayers of penitence, Creeds and Eucharistic prayers which by their nature reflect the doctrine and teaching of the church. Only authorised forms of these texts may be used in main services on a regular basis. Commended material has been approved by the House of Bishops for occasional use in specific situations or occasions. Much of this material is seasonal or takes account for the need for more appropriate material for use on specific occasions or with specific groups of people.

As Naomi pointed has already pointed out, Common Worship allows for a great deal of flexibility. When I trained as a Commissioned Lay Minister in the CofE we were actively encouraged to explore new and different ways of 'doing church' - to quote Naomi "You have to meet people where they to keep church relevant, and to preach the gospel anew in each generation."

What he said

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We will disagree on this point. Church has always been relevant and needs nothing else to make it so.

I have seen this in many churches which have abandoned liturgy for this or that new innovative service. They say let's add a praise band, or a projection screen for multimedia supported sermons and that will draw in the young people. Only it didn't. And they chased their own tails trying to grow. Only they didn't. They dwindled to a shadow of their former selves. And one old guy left to become Anglican. I hope he won't have to leave to become Orthodox who have changed little since 1054.

It’s relevant for us, but non Christians don’t share these views.

 

[Mhiriam]

This is interesting - we never make the sign of the cross, not even the priest, not even at our 7:45am service where we use the traditional prayer book services.
However, we do have the priest mark with the sign of the cross someone being baptised, but that's it.
Kneeling is encouraged at communion - not if you have bad knees, though!
(evangelical here, as well)

sounds "popish" - there's my Presbyterian roots coming out...

 

[everbecoming2007]

sounds "popish" - there's my Presbyterian roots coming out...

That's not a good reason for criticizing a practice. I don't find anything even in evangelical forms of Anglicanism that makes a devotion like the sign of the cross inappropriate, and there are certainly high church Protestants in our communion. You're not necessarily saying that, but I just want to point out that lots of things integral to our tradition get brushed aside in other traditions as "popish" as well. That's simply not a valid argument at all. It isn't even an argument.

 

[Mhiriam]

It wasn't an argument - I am not against it in any way, and I never used the word "inappropriate" or said it was wrong in my post, I just stated what we did at my church. I was just joking with the "popish" comment - I do that sometimes. That's why I separated it and put it at the bottom of the post.

 

[everbecoming2007]

It wasn't an argument - I am not against it in any way, and I never used the word "inappropriate" or said it was wrong in my post, I just stated what we did at my church. I was just joking with the "popish" comment - I do that sometimes. That's why I separated it and put it at the bottom of the post.

As I said, you didn't necessarily say those things. But the point still needed to be made -- dismissals of a practice as "popish" are not any kind of argument against them.

 

[Shane R]

Not totally related to the subject at hand but the first Bishop of my jurisdiction was contemplating joining the Reformed Episcopal Church when he left TEC many years ago (approximately 1963). He was warned by a Presbyterian professor at Yale that he would not be accepted in that jurisdiction. And, indeed, my Archbishop recently came across an old publication describing Bp. Dees as too 'Romish' from his contemporaries in the REC. +Dees always wore the cassock and surplice while the REC of the time was amenable to preaching gowns, quite strictly it seems.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

As I said, you didn't necessarily say those things. But the point still needed to be made -- dismissals of a practice as "popish" are not any kind of argument against them.

Except when it’s in the Articles of Religion.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Except when it’s in the Articles of Religion.

A mere dismissal is not an argument. I don't see the term "popish" anywhere in the Articles. If it occurs in the Homilies I would presume it would at least be combined with a theological argument.