Notice the correlation of each…

Read the rest of this entry »

I choose the 1928 Book of Common Prayer for my authority of worship. I do this for a number of reasons, some of which support the use of the 1662:

• 1. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer represents the Anglican Church in America as it was in its orthodox state; the last official Prayer Book to be received by the entire American Anglican union prior to the modern division of the church. It was also a revision that was authorized by both the American bishops as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury (1789). The 1928 is also more ecumenical to the East, which, to me, is an important part of the future of Christendom.

• 2. Because of the statement above, the 1928, to me, represents the unity of the Anglican church of America. I think that the new revised Prayer Book put out by Rev. Toon, is a bold attempt for a new type of unified Prayer Book (as was the REC Prayer Book), but only time will tell if it will be able to sustain. If it was to become the leading Prayer Book, I would likely use it, but with some reluctance.

• 3. The 1928 has maintained the Elizabethan language, which is important for a number of reasons: It prevents the standard of worship from drifting into “ghetto” formats of language, as time within America has proven itself to drag various liturgies into; it brings the Christian to the linguistic roots of the Prayer Book, which in turn opens the door for great appreciation for the Reformation; and finally the Elizabethan language is a very “poetic” language, and so enables the Christian to separate themselves from the loose language of everyday life and take up a language that is rich in meaning and melody, exemplifying ones worship experience.

• 4. The 1928 contains the Apocrypha within the liturgical calendar. This is important for a variety of reasons, one being that Article 6 states that the Apocrypha is to continue as a part of the Church, as opposed to what the Anabaptist believed. The Article states: “the Church doth read [the Apocrypha] for example of life and instruction of manners…”

• 5. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer, in the Holy Communion, begins with the Our Father. This, to me, is a very “biblical” way of beginning a service. Also the latter part of the Holy Communion is placed nearer to the end of the service, with a greater anticipation and building up to the distribution. In the 1662, it seems as though the distribution is done a bit too prematurely, with the Our Father and Oblation done after, rather than before. Although there is a short type of Oblation and Invocation within the Prayer of Consecration, it does not seem to make the impact that the extended version of the 1928 makes.

• The differences between the 1928 and the 1979 are far too many to list in this page. Overall, the 1928 is more Reformed in character/doctrine, confronting the Christian with their sin and depravity, whereas the 79 is much softer on sin and depravity. Many Anglicans believe the 1979 Prayer Book to be unorthodox.

This article shows how restaurants are now losing money due to more women doing what women have traditionally done in pre-liberal times: manage their homes!

According to the article, more women are staying at home and cooking for their families, which has in turn caused restaurants to lose revenue. No offense to anyone that works within the restaurant industry, but let’s face it, this industry, along with many other modern industries (see industrial revolution) has created a narcissistic culture and ethic in America (in particular) that leads to nothing but schism within the family and the Church.

Not only is the American economy based on this “capitalistic” framework, but much of the Christian ministry - especially within Evangelicalism - is built on this same framework. The essence of this model includes the basic tendency and motive to capitalize on the overall desires and weaknesses of the people! Yet the ethic of Christ involves selfless and sacrificial love for one another, as Christ clearly demonstrated to us in His lifetime. This means that one may actually need to repent and serve those that Christ calls us to serve, rather than fleeing from the difficult service in order to build our own, more monetarily gainful, business or ministry.

The overcorrection to modern capitalism would be the pursuit of idealistic notions (idealism - the creation and belief of ideals that are impossible to manage). The Puritans fell into this shortly after they settled in America. Imposing laws and theologies that had never been fully embraced in all of history, the Puritans believed that God had called them to be the new Jerusalem. They were wrong! God does not want an overnight make-shift Jerusalem erected. God simply wants us to do what is right and just within our own lives, and teach those same principles to our pupils. If our pupils do not want to learn and live the ways of Christ, then they have chosen to live as peasants (there is nothing sinful about a society with poor people. When Christ says to give to the poor, He is certainly not commanding us to instantly make them wealthy). Typically, the idealist would want both classes of peasant and elitist to become abolished, and this is generally called liberalism. Liberalism is not the answer to capitalism! The answer to secular capitalism is… well, I am not sure there is a proper “ism” to place here, at least not one that would be understood by most Christians. Though, I can say this: The “biblical” model of Christian economy is not found in one particular frame of history, but likely, a combination of historical frames, coupled with a combination of historical theologies.