Lectionary - Tower of Babal

[gtsecc]

For ten points, compare the story of the Tower of Babel, Gen 11, with using or not usign the lectionary and prayer book.

[Naomi4Christ]

Just read it in the bible -throw away all your other books and you'll never have to refer to them.

[gtsecc]

Just read it in the bible -throw away all your other books and you'll never have to refer to them.
If Christians did that during the first few hundred years of the church, we would only have the Scriptures Paul speaks of - the Old Testament.

[Naomi4Christ]

Yeah, but this is the 21st century. We now have the NT Canon and it's not going to go away!

[gtsecc]

Yeah, but this is the 21st century. We now have the NT Canon and it's not going to go away!
But what you were proposign would have done away with it.
The Church put forth the Bible.
The Bible does not put forth the Church.

[gitlance]

Yeah, but this is the 21st century. We now have the NT Canon and it's not going to go away!

Dogsbody,

With all due respect:

I would suggest that if you come into the Anglican forum, claiming to be an Anglican, you should adhere to our beliefs and traditions. For us, the Prayer Book and the Lectionary are both established books used by the Church. They are not to be done away with, and I can assure you they won't be going away as long as the Anglican Church stays in existence.

We, as Anglicans, adhere to the Faith and Tradition of the Church as it has been received and understood for 2000 years. While that includes the New Testament canon, there are many other works of the saints and the Church which we revere. The New Testament is simply certain aspects of the Faith 'once delivered to the saints' which have been written down. The rest of that faith has been passed orally through the Church and her bishops.

I welcome you to the board. Please be respectful of our beliefs. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

Christ's peace!

Lance

[Naomi4Christ]

Oh for goodness sake! I am an Anglican, so you can stretch whatever definition you have to include me and my church family - remember it is a very broad and tolerant church. Sorry that it doesn't suit you but didn't Paul have something to say about that too?

[gitlance]

Oh for goodness sake! I am an Anglican, so you can stretch whatever definition you have to include me and my church family - remember it is a very broad and tolerant church. Sorry that it doesn't suit you but didn't Paul have something to say about that too?

All I'm requesting is that you do not argue about things which EVERY Anglican agrees with. And I assure you, every Anglican agrees that the BCP and the lectionary are good things. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The way you pray determines what you believe.

[Naomi4Christ]

Really?

[Naomi4Christ]

What about Common Worship?

What about informal liturgies?

Maybe they trump the BCP.

[gitlance]

There was a time in history when the Church of England refused to distribute Bibles without also distributing BCPs. Correct prayer leads to correct belief.

[pmcleanj]

Oh for goodness sake! I am an Anglican, so you can stretch whatever definition you have to include me and my church family - remember it is a very broad and tolerant church.
Will you please show some of that breadth and tolerance on this board? The members you are posting to are real people, not the effects of a Turing machine. They have struggles that your posting style may be adding to, instead of helping to carry. They have a perspective that may enrich yours, and that you may enrich, if you will communicate with them as equals instead of baiting.

Remember, the mission of Christian Forums is "Uniting all Christians as One Body". Starting with treating the members of our own Tradition with courtesy and mutuality would be a good start on that unity.

If you feel that you have not been offered that mutuality yourself, I would invite you to put your perspective, and your disagreement, honestly and openly forward. For the most part, you will be met in return with openness and compassion, which is of far more value in building relationships than any points you may score with witty reparte.

[Naomi4Christ]

I am sorry if I offended anyone by my points of view and posting style.

But I don't think it is reasonable to sit back and nod along agreeing with everyone either. If am an told I am not an Anglican and my church is not Anglican, then I'm afraid I have a duty to react to that.

What value is there in making definitions so narrow (the use of the BCP) - where's the inclusivity there? It makes the church way too cliquey.

We have been given the task of spreading the gospel - and we have to put our energies where that it most effective. Squabbling about denominational issues is very counter-productive. I think it is a good idea to examine everything we do in a church community to see how it leads to our main goal.

[SirTimothy]

All I'm requesting is that you do not argue about things which EVERY Anglican agrees with. And I assure you, every Anglican agrees that the BCP and the lectionary are good things. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The way you pray determines what you believe.

Sorry, mate. Not EVERY Anglican. Not a lot, in the CofE, in fact. And of course, those of us from the CofE, really define what Anglican means, since Anglican is pretty close to meaning English...

Now the Church of England is moving on. The Book of Common Prayer is still used, occasionally, but Common Worship is the new defining standard... not only in the CofE, but in many other provinces. It DOES contain an expanded version of the Revised Common Lectionary, which is an OPTIONAL set of readings... often considered good, useful, etc. so as to not get Priests onto hobby-horses preaching on the same stuff, but not necessary. It hasn't been necessary in the CofE since the 1980 ASB.

Timothy

[gitlance]

Sorry, mate. Not EVERY Anglican. Not a lot, in the CofE, in fact. And of course, those of us from the CofE, really define what Anglican means, since Anglican is pretty close to meaning English...

Now the Church of England is moving on. The Book of Common Prayer is still used, occasionally, but Common Worship is the new defining standard... not only in the CofE, but in many other provinces. It DOES contain an expanded version of the Revised Common Lectionary, which is an OPTIONAL set of readings... often considered good, useful, etc. so as to not get Priests onto hobby-horses preaching on the same stuff, but not necessary. It hasn't been necessary in the CofE since the 1980 ASB.

Timothy

If Common Worship is being used, then I think that still fulfills the requirement for the BCP as far as Anglicanism goes. We have been defined through our worship by a book. If Common Worship is a book that unites Anglicans in their worship, then that is fine. It doesn't really matter what the title is.

[higgs2]

So what is CW? Is it like a book of alternative services? Why are people saying it does not qualify as using the prayer book?

[gitlance]

I have also flipped through a copy of CW, and it doesn't seem as "contemporary" and "free-spirited" as it is made out to be here. Anyone care to elaborate? It looks in some respects like the 1979 BCP.

[higgs2]

That's what I was wondering -- is it like the 1979 BCP? If a church is not using any sort of prayer book and just making up their service according to what they feel like doing I can see how that seems a bit "un-anglican", but if people are saying that it's the 1662 BCP or nothing that seems unreasonable.

I have also flipped through a copy of CW, and it doesn't seem as "contemporary" and "free-spirited" as it is made out to be here. Anyone care to elaborate? It looks in some respects like the 1979 BCP.

[Naomi4Christ]

It's not un-Anglican to make up your own services, as long as it contains the basic building blocks - confession, prayers, worship, reading, sermon. There is a lot of flexibility in CW to jiggle about the various parts of a service to suit what you want. I have a feeling, that if you want to adhere strictly to the rubrics, then you only have to have one service that follows the guidelines per Sunday. This could be the 1662 BCP if you like, with your main services being more homespun. In practice, the wording of the prayers is the same for most ordinary weeks - same confession, same offertory prayer, for example.

I've never seen a CW book - we just print up individual service sheets each week and display the liturgy on the big screen.

Anglican is what Anglicans do - it's hard to describe an Anglican congregation as un-Anglican because by definition they are!

[SirTimothy]

Common Worship is a bit like the 1979 BCP. The Alternative Service book was more like it. The problem is the books are absobitantly expensive for a whole congregation, so most churches create their own booklets (I plan on buying a copy when I'm back.) It has... If I'm right, 7-8 Eucharistic Prayers, 2-3 Morning prayers, etc. And you can pick and choose which bits you want.

Timothy

[ChessCastle]

For ten points, compare the story of the Tower of Babel, Gen 11, with using or not usign the lectionary and prayer book.

With all thats been said in this thread, it seems to have gotten away from this original post. Can I ask for an explanation of what exactly were being asked to compare? I'm a bit confused by the wording but I want to do the comparision.

CC

[Philip]

Anglican is what Anglicans do - it's hard to describe an Anglican congregation as un-Anglican because by definition they are!

How far does this stretch?

[gitlance]

How far does this stretch?

Officially, it doesn't stretch very far. Some people pride themselves on this belief that "anything is ok if you are Anglican". That's a load of rubbish. We require belief in the creeds, affirmation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Scriptures in their original canon, the Apostolic Succession as being necessary, and other things. Our required beliefs are not that far removed from the Eastern Church. Sadly, some people choose to not believe those things, and yet still call themselves Anglican (though I suppose that is true in any church). Those few and far between people really mess it up for the rest of us trying to uphold the Catholic Faith.

[Philip]

Can I ask for an explanation of what exactly were being asked to compare? I'm a bit confused by the wording but I want to do the comparision.

God confused the languages of the builders of the Tower so that they could not work together. I think the OP's point is this: How can we build our own tower to heaven if our worship is not unified?

[gtsecc]

God confused the languages of the builders of the Tower so that they could not work together. I think the OP's point is this: How can we build our own tower to heaven if our worship is not unified?
Exactly.
In the Church of England, the FIRST change we made during the reformation was under Edward, and it was simply to put forth the Book of COmmon Prayer and the worship, in English. So, an important doctrine for us is that we all share what we pray in Church (that we all pray the same words), and understand it. Reading out the lectionary clearly helps.

[Naomi4Christ]

How far does this stretch?

No stretching is required. It is what it is.

[SirTimothy]

Officially, it doesn't stretch very far. Some people pride themselves on this belief that "anything is ok if you are Anglican". That's a load of rubbish. We require belief in the creeds, affirmation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Scriptures in their original canon, the Apostolic Succession as being necessary, and other things. Our required beliefs are not that far removed from the Eastern Church. Sadly, some people choose to not believe those things, and yet still call themselves Anglican (though I suppose that is true in any church). Those few and far between people really mess it up for the rest of us trying to uphold the Catholic Faith.

I'm afraid that that, despite my attempting to remain calm and polite is absolute rubbish. None of the churches in the AC require those things. Some of them still require acquiescence to the 39 Articles, however... which I'm positive you don't agree with, since it establishes the 66 canon as authoritative, says there's only a Spiritual Presence in the Eucharist, etc.

A correct answer to the question:

How far does this stretch?

Is a LONG way. Those people that would like to define things as unanglican which are 100% approved of by the Church of England (Which is technically speaking the church which defines what the word Anglican means...) are in fact in error. The church is far broader than these narrow-minded people would like the church to be. The AC stretches from the very protestant to the very high-church. The defining point (as I've said before) is UNITY in shared communion, not CONFORMITY.

Timothy

[Philip]

The defining point (as I've said before) is UNITY in shared communion, not CONFORMITY.


Can you clarify 'unity in shared communion' for me?

[SirTimothy]

Can you clarify 'unity in shared communion' for me?

I would say that that means we are a group that are joined together by a recognition of each other's sacraments, and a willingness to recieve them at each other's churches, without worrying about the validity. A willingness to agree to disagree, yet join together at the Eucharist. This, is the defining point, to me.

Timothy

[Simon_Templar]

But what you were proposign would have done away with it.
The Church put forth the Bible.
The Bible does not put forth the Church.


This is a common view in the traditional churches, but I think it is incorrect. The church did produce the bible... but the bible also produces the church... if we did not have the scriptures.. the church would not exist and whatever church did exist would not be true or faithful. You can't have the scriptures without the church.. but you also can't have the church without the scriptures.

Let me illustrate using an analogy.. the US Constitution and the USA.. the USA produced the constitution but.. the constitution also established and maintained the USA.. neither one can exist without the other... The ultimate reason for this is that both the constitution and the USA have another ultimate source which produces both.. the people.

Likewise, the church was established by scripture and the scripture was established by the church.. because Both were ultimately established by God and God used them together to make each other and preserve each other.