The Original Preface to the Book of Common Prayer

I have gotten some interesting feedback for idea topics from my query yesterday on what to do for a new series of blog entries, now that I have finished my 39 Articles in 39 days series. A commentary on the "Tracts for the Times" which spawned the Tractarian movement in the early 1800's was suggested on Facebook. Other suggestions were to compare and contrast the Canons of the Mass between the BCP and the Novus Ordo. Both of those ideas interested me, but both are some heavier duty academic lifting that I do not have time to engage in at the moment. 

My wife also suggested doing a Saint of the Week commentary, which I may do in addition to a longer series.  I have to figure out what saint to pick from. I, personally, refuse to use that new Holy Women, Holy Men monstrosity (or as I refer to it, Holy Women, Holy Weirdos) that General Convention is trying to foist on us because it is just any and every "saint" that someone somewhere wanted to add to the calendar. So, instead of actually discerning canonization on an individual basis, we simply canonize buckshot. I just refuse to use it because it is not a canonization process that is community based. What left the worst taste in my mouth about it was the way it was presented in the extremely emotive "You have to accept it all because we've put so much effort into it, you don't want to hurt our feelings by rejecting it!" The whole thing has just rubbed me the wrong way. 

So, that leaves either the major feasts in the BCP, most of whom are New Testament figures, or the older Lesser Feasts and Fasts (which in itself has some problems because there are, in fact, no lesser fasts in the book) or and even older Anglican saint calendars. There is an interesting list in the Book of Common Worship series from the Church of England that is very similar to Lesser Feasts and Fasts but has more local saints known only in England and Ireland in it. That might be a possibility. Or, I can just pick a saint either at random or from the Catholic calendar (they have one almost every day). I can call it the "Dealer's Choice Saint of the Week." 

For a somewhat longer series (not nearly the 39 article commentary behemoth that I have just finished), someone suggested a commentary on the Original Preface for the original 1549 Book of Common Prayer. That interests me because it is an interesting salvo into the English Reformation and liturgical reform. I will start a short series on that this week. 

So, read up on it. The original version can be found here. If the old style language and spelling is too much for you to decipher, there is a modernized version of in the "Historical Articles" section of the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer. You can access that on www.bcponline.org. Simply click on the "Historical Documents of the Church" link in the left column (it is the 14th one from the top, left) then scroll down a few pages past the Creed of Athanasius. 

Taking Requests

I have come to the end of my series on the Articles of Religion. I found that I quite enjoyed doing that, as it kept my blog "on task." I am now open to requests from my readers, if they have any ideas for a series of articles on some other theological document or proposition.

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

Saturday Reflection

Article 39: The Final Article

Well, my friends, I have made it to the end of this series on the Anglican Articles of Religion from 1563. I did a commentary on each article on the 39 days leading up to Pentecost, which is tomorrow. I have actually enjoyed doing this series. I thought I would get bogged down, but I largely did not do huge amounts of research. Sometimes it is fun to just shoot from the hip and see what you hit. I will attempt to do a final recap tomorrow, but for today, the final article is Article 39:


XXXIX. Of a Christian man's Oath

As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion cloth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teaching, injustice, judgement, and truth.

Of all the topics to end with, I have always found this topic to be a curious grand finale. A Grand Slam in the Bottom of the 9th it ain't, but I suppose they had to end somewhere. And, indeed, this article is somewhat cryptically worded. 

Article 37, if you recall, had a curious bit about the relationship between civil magistrates and the Church, the Bishop of Rome having no jurisdiction in the Realm of England, and the final throw away lines discussing, "The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offenses, " and that "It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars." Article 38 then jumps into a discussion of things held in common, and the Article 39 has to do with the taking of oaths. There was much debate when these were being drawn up and adopted on where exactly to delineate the concepts in Articles 37, 38, and 39, which is why they seem somewhat disjointed when read together. In fact, some subsequent editions of the published Articles actually moved the last two concepts of Article 37 to Article 38, so as to lump all of the Civil Rights and Duties of Man into a more coherent order. This explains why, if you consult Victorian era commentaries on the Articles of Religion, they often seem to mislabel the final articles. 

One has to understand the idea of Realms to understand the thinking of the final articles. We have somewhat lost that idea in the modern world, where the secular or civic realm is basically the only realm. The Church and Religion are largely viewed now as little more that personal hobbies that one engages in, if one is so inclined, in one's own spare time. The idea of a "Realm" is best defined as a royal domain or "the region, sphere, or domain within which anything occurs, prevails, or dominates. The closest thing to compare the idea to these days is perhaps the idea of the realm of dreams. People's dreams are real, but quite apart from the Realm of Reality. 

In classic Medieval civic thought, there was the Realm of the Church and the Realm of the Sovereign. Both were important, and people existed in both realms simultaneously. One had duties to and expectations of both realms. It was almost as if one had duel citizenship in two countries. This hearkens back to St. Augustine's notions in the City of God that evolved from the Biblical thinking of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. Being a good Platonic philosopher who believed in the world of Ideals and Forms, St. Augustine thought that the Kingdom of Man was always a shadowy reflection of the Kingdom of God, much like the idea that the Human Body was but a crude, shadowy reflection of the Human Soul, the Soul being the "really real" part of a person. 

As such, there was much debate beginning in the Middle Ages well into the Reformation about what duties that human individuals owed to the Church and to the State. Do we pay taxes if they are oppressive? Do we fight in wars when Jesus said, "Pray for your enemies?" Is it right to execute people in certain defined situations? Basically, the dilemma boiled down to one question: "What is lawful for a person in his private capacity as a citizen in the Realm of Man, and what is lawful for him to do as a "minster of Christ" in the Realm of God? Conversely, what happens when the two realms come into conflict? Specifically, when the State is asking you to do something that violates your conscience as a Christian? At what point do you not participate, and at what point do you openly rebel? 

Though he would not come onto the scene until the 20th Century, this is what Richard Neibuhr was discussing when he set up the dichotomies of how one viewed the Role of Christ in the World. Basically, he came up with several paradigms. Do you see Christ's relation to Culture (or the Realm of Man) as being in or of the culture, being against culture, being above culture. Or do you see Christ transforming culture or being in Paradox with Culture? How you view Christ's relationship to the world largely affects the answer to the questions raised in my prior paragraph. Of course, Neibuhr's paradigms are limited, as real life does not so easily fit into neat academic paradigms, but they are interesting as a tool to understanding people's differing predispositions toward secular authority. 

Anabaptists, for example, very much viewed Christ as against culture, and therefore were pacifist and had a tendency to want to create a Utopia unto themselves. Anglicans on the other hand were in a pickle because if the King was also the head of the Church, then the Church was, in some sense, the State. Therefore, the knee jerk reaction by some Anglicans very much tended to have a view that Christ was of the culture. Rebelling against either the Established Church or the Crown was in either capacity a rebellion against God's created order. 

As such, the final Articles of Religion wanted to nail down these concepts as being lawful under the Realm of the Crown. Perhaps such things were not ideal, but they were deemed necessary for the proper functioning of the State. It was not against Christian conscience to allow the "things that are Caesar's" to remain in the hands of Caesar, particularly if Caesar is a Christian monarch. That may seem a little warped, but with the baggage of "Divine Right of Kings" on the one hand, and open Protestant rebellion against any and all authority on the other, it does make sense from the time period's perspective. 

  

Something for Memorial Day

We often think of Memorial Day as a time of remembering the dead, which it primarily is of course. I would argue that Memorial Day should also be a time of remembering those who, though their physical body may have survived a war, their mental state did not.

The National Film Preservation Foundation has released for public online viewing a film that was originally censored and classified for many years, not released in any form until 1980. It was originally filmed as a documentary at the tail end of World War II.  The was directed by John Huston, who was the director of such Bogart classics as the Maltese Falcon and Treasure of the Sierra Madre. There is a bit more history on the film here.

The documentary is an hour long and is basically footage of interviews done with veterans who were suffering from what the terminology of the time called "shell shock." We now know more about it and refer to the condition as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In World War II, virtually nothing was known about it, much less how to deal with it from a clinical, pastoral, or counseling standpoint.

The National Film Preservation Foundation has it available online and for download, both for free, at their website here. It is just under an hour in length, and the film's style and content might be considered pretty tame by modern documentary and cinematography standards, but it was originally decades ahead of its time.


Even by today's standards, some of the interviews are extremely sad and disturbing.

We often don't think of World War II veterans as having this problem, thinking instead of Vietnam or veterans of later conflicts. I would recommend taking the hour to watch it though because Memorial Day should encompass not just those who died but those who survived and had to actually live with what they saw on the battlefield.

Article 38: Goods Held in Common

Today's article (We are nearing the very end!) deals with the interesting theological concept of things held in common by the community: 


XXXVIII. Of Christian men's Goods, which are not common
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.


This article clearly calls out the Anabaptists by name. Anabaptist, of course, is an umbrella term for quite a few strands of Radical Reforming Protestantism. I have gone into this discussion before. I will only note that one should be sure not to confuse the term Anabaptist with Baptist, as the two are completely different. Most known of the Anabaptists in America are the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites.


I mention the Hutterites because there are several Hutterite colonies in South Dakota. In fact, there is a very large colony not far from where I live currently. You see them in their distinctive garb coming in to shop here in town. Most of them still speak with a heavy German brogue. In fact, Hutterish is a distinct German dialect unto itself. I have a parishioner who owns land adjacent to the Hutterite colony, and we have been meaning to make an appointment and go have lunch at the Hutterite colony. Sadly, we have not been able to coordinate that yet, but I still intend to do that, as Hutterites are truly fascinating. 


Hutterites are classic communal Anabaptists. Everything is held in common by the colony. As I understand it, they are pretty strictly segregated by gender within the colony. But what it fascinating about them is that they basically live in common. The children seldom have existential identity issues because they are communal, and it is clear what the role is of each individual within the community.     


What is also fascinating to me about them is that unlike the Amish, they have absolutely no problem with modern technology. They have some of the finest combines and farming equipment in the county; but it is just all held in common. They rationalize life in this way as a modern application of how the Early Church is described in the Book of Acts. 


Western views of individuality and capitalism are firmly entrenched in our modern mindsets. I am not against individual freedoms and private ownership at all, but say what you will about Anabaptist Utopian views against private ownership, this Anabaptist practice is very hard to refute from a Scriptural standpoint. I think this is why it fascinates me. They are living Biblically in a very real, tangible, and Christian sense. Perhaps some Anabaptist groups do "falsely boast" of this mentality of holding things in common, but I find it interesting that this Article dares not assert that such a view is "Repugnant to Scripture," because it is very much scriptural.


Sometimes I think Modern Christianity might actually be better off if we actually attempted to live more communally, and not simply relying on the Government to provide everything for us like healthcare, social welfare, etc. God commands the Church to care for the poor. I do not see any "passing the buck" allowed in the New Testament. If we can't or won't provide all the needs of the poor, have we failed in our mission as the Church?


Food for thought.

Support Father Tim's Walk-a-thon for South Sudan

Click here to learn more and donate.

37 down, 2 to go

I am nearing the end of the blog series on the Articles of Religion. There are only two more after today. Today's is a piggyback on yesterday's article concerning the legal and proper procedure for the Consecration of Bishops. Today's article is cut of the same cloth, but in the civic realm:


XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrates
The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offenses.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.


If one looks at this Article, one sees a battle going on concerning the Royal Supremacy, with its roots in the English Reformation under Henry VIII. Henry VIII is notorious for his wanting a divorce, but really that was only a minor part of the history. The Pope and the English Nobility had been feuding, literally for centuries. After Henry VIII, both the Catholics and the Puritans were largely adverse to the idea of Royal Supremacy. Henry used the term "Head of the Church." After Mary Tudor's death, the term "Governor" was substituted to the Monarch in relation to the Church, as it was less objectionable to many.


What went down after the Civil War and Restoration was that the Royal Supremacy became defines as civil law and courts came to trump ecclesiatical law and jurisdiction. Other religious bodies became free to govern themselves, provided they did not break the civil law in doing so. The Church of England became even more subservient to the State because it takes an Act of Parliament to change the liturgy (i.e. issue a new BCP) or redefine the Articles of Religion or to modify any existing canon. Thus, in theory, the Church of England cannot pass any new canons without consent of the crown. This largely got reformed after WWII, but, in theory, this is still the practice. 


One will also note that Rome is the target of the particular vehemence of this article. The Bishop of Rome being called out by name as having "no jurisdiction in the Realm of England." The "evils" of Papal Supremacy were outlawed (in theory) by this article. 


Also of note, summary execution of criminals and the bearing of arms in times of war upon the writ of the Civil authorities was also ceded as a power to the Supremacy of the Realm of England. I will return to these notions tomorrow, as the final two and half articles address Civil Rights and Duties of citizens of the Realm.  


This article is basically completely rejected in any version adopted by the Episcopal Church in the U.S. after the Revolution. The American replacement version from the 1792 Book of Common Prayer is this:


The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things 
temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of 
all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, 
regularly and legitimately constituted.


The American version seems to touch upon some prototype version of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. The Church and those in it are not above or apart from the state. In other words, the American Anglicans were clear that they were not trying establish the Three Estates of the Realm which was a hallmark of the civics the Middle Ages. The 3rd Estate of the clergy led to many abuses, and often shielded the clergy from civil prosecution in some cases. Clearly, the Early American Anglicans did not want that. 


One might wonder how those in the Episcopal Church would react today to an edict to "pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted." I know many who scoff at that, paying respectful obedience only when the Civil Authority is governed by their own political party. I think we need to work on a theology of civic respectful obedience, both in practice and in conversation with those who don't agree with our political views. 


Ponder that in an election year.