Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams

[Nice Dream]

I read today in the paper that he thinks it was sinful for the Anglican church to spread hymns around the world. I just wondered what you all thought of this? Agree or disagree?

[cathromang]

do you have a link to this?
I'd be curious to read it...

[PaladinValer]

Mind citing? Or giving us a link?

[Nice Dream]

No, sorry :sorry:, i read it in a paper BUT i will go have a look and see if i can find it.

[Nice Dream]

Ok, i did a few quick searches and nothing came up but it was in todays daily mail if that is of any help at all.

[cathromang]

The Archbishop said that one of the greatest challenges faced by Anglicans was the development of authentically local voices in liturgy.

"In all sorts of ways the church over the centuries has lent itself to the error, indeed the sin of trying to make cultural captives, whether it is the mass export of Hymns Ancient and Modern to the remote parts of the mission field ... the shadow of the British Empire that hangs over our own Communion or the export of American values and styles to the whole world; we are in a real difficulty here.... The question comes back again and again; 'How do we encourage people to write liturgy, to write prayer books, to write Eucharistic prayers, in their own language with the rhythm, the association and resonance that your own language has for you and no other has."


this is what I found.

[cathromang]

Appears from what I read he was saying to revise everything to meet the needs of whatever society you are in.

...

<bites tongue until blood comes out>

[PaladinValer]

It seems that the ABC is condemning what is popularly called "culturalism," or the promotion of one culture over others.

Culturalism is basically a lesser form of racism. I think the ABC is dead-on if this is the case.

[gtsecc]

Should we have an Ebonics Eucharist?
Do we really want to change this language?
Eucharistic Prayer I



The people remain standing. The Celebrant, whether bishop or priest,

faces them and sings or says



The Lord be with you.

People And with thy spirit.

Celebrant Lift up your hearts.

People We lift them up unto the Lord.

Celebrant Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.

People It is meet and right so to do.

[cathromang]

It seems that the ABC is condemning what is popularly called "culturalism," or the promotion of one culture over others.

Culturalism is basically a lesser form of racism. I think the ABC is dead-on if this is the case.

So then each country, each city, each different city block has it's own BCP/Eucharist?
An ebonics BCP? The Eucharist for rednecks?
If each different culture or group gets to make their own liturgies and BCP's then there is no conformity and we may as well be split in many factions.
and he...

<bites tongue for second time and runs from room>

[Fish and Bread]

I think I must respectfully disagree with the Archbishop on this issue. One thing that I think we tend to forget in the modern era is that Christianity itself is to some extent a culture as well as a religion, just as Judiasm, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are. Our liturgies and hymns are part of that culture and that tradition. It is not a form of imperalism to teach fellow Christians our shared heritage. Instead, it is a form of welcoming them fully into the communion of saints, to share in the fullness of who we are and who they have become.

That said, obviously, there is room for new music and new liturgical expressions, and I think we have much to learn from our Christian brothers and sisters in all parts of the world. I'd rather see their traditions incorporated into our worldwide tradition, which they should also be a part of, than to see them reject our traditions and create their own which we in turn don't ask them to share with us. We're supposed to be one bread and one body and I think sharing of liturgies and hymns, in both directions, can be one reflection of that ideal. :)

John

[Nice Dream]

whether it is the mass export of Hymns Ancient and Modern to the remote parts of the mission field ...

Isn't this just a part of spreading the gospel though, which, as Christians, we are taught to do?

I often find when i read things that the ABC says he is trying to be politically correct and appeal to both liberal and more fundamentalist Christians at the same time. Sort of trying to find favour with the people rather than teaching what the bible actually says.

[gtsecc]

Maybe we should just go back to Latin.
Oremus.

[Fish and Bread]

I often find when i read things that the ABC says he is trying to be politically correct and appeal to both liberal and more fundamentalist Christians at the same time. Sort of trying to find favour with the people rather than teaching what the bible actually says.

I think that the Archbishop has a very strong sense of the role of the Church as a uniting force in the world. He desperately wants to keep the Anglican Communion visibly unified and, further, to work towards oneness with other Christian bodies, and towards a closer relationship of understanding and friendship with non-christians of all stripes. That perspective is admirable, but those who adopt it have to be very careful not to step over the line and abandon who we are as a Christian people while trying to build bridges. Usually Archbishop Williams walks that line quite well, in my view, though he may occasionally trip over it and have to pick himself back up and dust himself back off. :)

John

[cathromang]

:sigh:


Everyday it seems I slip farther from Canterbury...

[Nice Dream]

I think that the Archbishop has a very strong sense of the role of the Church as a uniting force in the world. He desperately wants to keep the Anglican Communion visibly unified and, further, to work towards oneness with other Christian bodies, and towards a closer relationship of understanding and friendship with non-christians of all stripes. That perspective is admirable, but those who adopt it have to be very careful not to step over the line and abandon who we are as a Christian people while trying to build bridges. Usually Archbishop Williams walks that line quite well, in my view, though he may occasionally trip over it and have to pick himself back up and dust himself back off. :)

John

He's in a difficult position, i'll give him that. I think he's a bit overreliant on himself rather than God. It is God who draws people and unites the church, not him. A strong leader can't be compromising. I just think it'd be good to hear what he actually thinks rather than what he thinks the various members of the anglican church want him to.

[Fish and Bread]

I just think it'd be good to hear what he actually thinks rather than what he thinks the various members of the anglican church want him to.

I understand where you're coming from. Sometimes it can be frustrating when our leaders dance around issues. I actually think it is a good leadership quality, particularly in religious circles, not to just say whatever is on one's mind, though. Archbishop Williams has a unique responsibility as one of the central "faces" of the Church for seventy million Anglicans worldwide. He has to be careful not to voice his own personal opinions in such a way as to be a stumbling block for those under his spiritual care, or for those who may convert in the future. As a result, if he is not absolutely sure of God's will on a particular issue, it may be best for him to dance around it a little or give his own opinion only after issuing a bit of a disclaimer that it is just his opinion and not necessarily God's will.

John

[john23237]

The Archbishop said that one of the greatest challenges faced by Anglicans was the development of authentically local voices in liturgy.

"In all sorts of ways the church over the centuries has lent itself to the error, indeed the sin of trying to make cultural captives, whether it is the mass export of Hymns Ancient and Modern to the remote parts of the mission field ... the shadow of the British Empire that hangs over our own Communion or the export of American values and styles to the whole world; we are in a real difficulty here.... The question comes back again and again; 'How do we encourage people to write liturgy, to write prayer books, to write Eucharistic prayers, in their own language with the rhythm, the association and resonance that your own language has for you and no other has."


this is what I found.


Excuse me for asking such a foolish question, but when has every member national church NOT had the right to write their own BCP and hymnals? How is the West discouraging this? In what way are we imposing our culture on others? If some third world churches CHOSE to IMPORT American values and styles, where have WE sinned? By not stopping them? They have every right to write and publish their own. Why do we need to "encourage"? It is not like we are stopping them in any way of which I am aware. More third world whining.

[Nice Dream]

Excuse me for asking such a foolish question, but when has every member national church NOT had the right to write their own BCP and hymnals? How is the West discouraging this? In what way are we imposing our culture on others? If some third world churches CHOSE to IMPORT American values and styles, where have WE sinned? By not stopping them? They have every right to write and publish their own. Why do we need to "encourage"? It is not like we are stopping them in any way of which I am aware. More third world whining.

Very well said. I totally agree.

[pmcleanj]

Excuse me for asking such a foolish question, but when has every member national church NOT had the right to write their own BCP and hymnals? How is the West discouraging this? In what way are we imposing our culture on others?


When? http://www.anglican.ca/Residental-Schools/overview.htm -- From 1820 to 1969, in my corner of the world.

In what way are we imposing our culture on others? -- From the above link: "It was thought that the quickest route to 'civilizing' and 'converting' the indigenous population was to forcibly remove indigenous children from their homes and communities and place them in residential schools. There was considerable variation in how the schools operated, but in many cases the children were forbidden to speak their mother tongues, their cultures were condemned as barbaric and their spirituality as heathen. " -- The important tense being was. Here in the ACoC we're trying to avoid complicity in continuing those attitudes. Admitting that it was WRONG to participate in deliberate cultural assimilation is part of avoiding a repetition of the shame.

And as a commonwealth colony, we were under the governance of the Archbishop of Canterbury for 47 years of that shame. It's a credit to him that he stands with us in admitting our wrong.

Should we have an Ebonics Eucharist?
Should we not have a francophone BCP for Quebec? No Inuktuk BCP for Nunavit? No Cree or Dene or Sisika BCP for those First Nations? Let them all learn English, if they want to be Anglican?

[Nice Dream]

When? http://www.anglican.ca/Residental-Schools/overview.htm -- From 1820 to 1969, in my corner of the world.

In what way are we imposing our culture on others? -- From the above link: "It was thought that the quickest route to 'civilizing' and 'converting' the indigenous population was to forcibly remove indigenous children from their homes and communities and place them in residential schools. There was considerable variation in how the schools operated, but in many cases the children were forbidden to speak their mother tongues, their cultures were condemned as barbaric and their spirituality as heathen. " -- The important tense being was. Here in the ACoC we're trying to avoid complicity in continuing those attitudes. Admitting that it was WRONG to participate in deliberate cultural assimilation is part of avoiding a repetition of the shame.

And as a commonwealth colony, we were under the governance of the Archbishop of Canterbury for 47 years of that shame. It's a credit to him that he stands with us in admitting our wrong.


Should we not have a francophone BCP for Quebec? No Inuktuk BCP for Nunavit? No Cree or Dene or Sisika BCP for those First Nations? Let them all learn English, if they want to be Anglican?

Clearly what was done then was wrong BUT the ABC doesn't appear to be reffering to instances in the past where force was used but rather ANY hymns being taught to people of different cultures as he includes the word 'modern' and uses the word 'export' rather than something implying force.

[higgs2]

Should we have an Ebonics Eucharist?
Do we really want to change this language?
Eucharistic Prayer I



The people remain standing. The Celebrant, whether bishop or priest,

faces them and sings or says



The Lord be with you.

People And with thy spirit.

Celebrant Lift up your hearts.

People We lift them up unto the Lord.

Celebrant Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.

People It is meet and right so to do.


We already have changed it, for the better in some cases.

[higgs2]

The Archbishop said that one of the greatest challenges faced by Anglicans was the development of authentically local voices in liturgy.

"In all sorts of ways the church over the centuries has lent itself to the error, indeed the sin of trying to make cultural captives, whether it is the mass export of Hymns Ancient and Modern to the remote parts of the mission field ... the shadow of the British Empire that hangs over our own Communion or the export of American values and styles to the whole world; we are in a real difficulty here.... The question comes back again and again; 'How do we encourage people to write liturgy, to write prayer books, to write Eucharistic prayers, in their own language with the rhythm, the association and resonance that your own language has for you and no other has."


this is what I found.
So this is not exactly saying that it's a sin t ospread hymns around the world! It's more saying the sin is not encouraging people to use their own cultures to develop prayer and liturgy. Thanks for finding this.

[john23237]

When? http://www.anglican.ca/Residental-Schools/overview.htm -- From 1820 to 1969, in my corner of the world.

In what way are we imposing our culture on others? -- From the above link: "It was thought that the quickest route to 'civilizing' and 'converting' the indigenous population was to forcibly remove indigenous children from their homes and communities and place them in residential schools. There was considerable variation in how the schools operated, but in many cases the children were forbidden to speak their mother tongues, their cultures were condemned as barbaric and their spirituality as heathen. " -- The important tense being was. Here in the ACoC we're trying to avoid complicity in continuing those attitudes. Admitting that it was WRONG to participate in deliberate cultural assimilation is part of avoiding a repetition of the shame.

And as a commonwealth colony, we were under the governance of the Archbishop of Canterbury for 47 years of that shame. It's a credit to him that he stands with us in admitting our wrong.


Should we not have a francophone BCP for Quebec? No Inuktuk BCP for Nunavit? No Cree or Dene or Sisika BCP for those First Nations? Let them all learn English, if they want to be Anglican?

I would most certainly agree with you that the residental schools, and all the other ways we in North America attempted to destroy Native American culture, were shameful to say the least. The ABC's remarks, however, by his references to the British Empire and 'exporting' culture seemed to be referring to international actions and on that point, I repeat, that each member church of the Anglican communion has the authority to write, publish, and utilize their own hymnals and BCP's. The Third world has rich, viberant cultures on which to draw inspiration. No one is stopping them. Their fate, their future, is and has been for many years now, in their own hands. It is within their power to draw strength, wisdom, and guidance from their native cultures or simply to copy ours. If they chose the later, the blame no longer lays with us. With freedom and independance comes the responsibility for one's own fate.

[romaneagle13]

I don't think it's a sin to spread Anglo-style music and prayers to other parts of the world. The Catholic Church spread Latin hymns and chants to other places and people there kept some of it as traditional and yet others made it their own--Africans mixed tribal chants in, etc. People in various places have put their own styles into it, but maintaining the liturgy and traditional music does give us Anglicans all around the world central focus and a commmonality that Latin gave to the Catholic Church. There is nothing wrong with that sense of unity either, as long as people are not so constrained that they cannot use their own voice to praise the Lord.

[cathromang]

Should we not have a francophone BCP for Quebec? No Inuktuk BCP for Nunavit? No Cree or Dene or Sisika BCP for those First Nations? Let them all learn English, if they want to be Anglican?


We're not talking however about simply different languages or making everyone learn english. There are already BCPs, etc in other languages. We're talking about persons changing the Eucharist and BCP to incorporate various cultures. Go to New Orleans, Haiti, and some of those islands and you will see how the RCC was incorporated and "adapted" into certain cultures there becoming new heretical religions.

For example, let's take the verse "Jesus wept" (KJV). In the Greek it is not the shortest verse in the Bible, as we commonly think. It refers to Christ weeping with a great indignation, almost snorting, if you will. More accurate translations will have something like this. However, during the 70's certain translations came out to reach those who could not understand the current translations. One of those took the verse and made it simply "His eyes filled with tears". What was lost there? And this was for a culture that could read english.

Who will watch to see the actual meanings of the Eucharist, BCP, whatever will not be lost? Or that certain pagan traditions are not incorporated into them much like the pagan temples attempted to infiltrate the church at Corinth? Because he was not talking about simply putting the words into their language - he was talking about letting each culture dictate what goes into it.

I believe Benedict, Bartholomew, and the Southern Baptists Convention :) would all call this heresy.

But then that's my two cents -

Much peace and love

[ChessCastle]

When? http://www.anglican.ca/Residental-Schools/overview.htm -- From 1820 to 1969, in my corner of the world.

In what way are we imposing our culture on others? -- From the above link: "It was thought that the quickest route to 'civilizing' and 'converting' the indigenous population was to forcibly remove indigenous children from their homes and communities and place them in residential schools. There was considerable variation in how the schools operated, but in many cases the children were forbidden to speak their mother tongues, their cultures were condemned as barbaric and their spirituality as heathen. " -- The important tense being was. Here in the ACoC we're trying to avoid complicity in continuing those attitudes. Admitting that it was WRONG to participate in deliberate cultural assimilation is part of avoiding a repetition of the shame.

And as a commonwealth colony, we were under the governance of the Archbishop of Canterbury for 47 years of that shame. It's a credit to him that he stands with us in admitting our wrong.


Should we not have a francophone BCP for Quebec? No Inuktuk BCP for Nunavit? No Cree or Dene or Sisika BCP for those First Nations? Let them all learn English, if they want to be Anglican?

Very good points indeed. :clap:

CC

[ChessCastle]

Who will watch to see the actual meanings of the Eucharist, BCP, whatever will not be lost? Or that certain pagan traditions are not incorporated into them much like the pagan temples attempted to infiltrate the church at Corinth? Because he was not talking about simply putting the words into their language - he was talking about letting each culture dictate what goes into it.



Isn't this one of the reasons we have bishops? We seem to be jumping to many far fetched conclusions from one small statement made by the ABC.

CC

[karen freeinchristman]

Isn't this one of the reasons we have bishops? CC
That was what I was going to say! :)

[cathromang]

Here's another article...




Williams apologises to ‘cultural captives’
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif



NI_MPU('middle');ROWAN WILLIAMS, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has apologised to archbishops in the developing world for the way the Church of England exported Hymns Ancient and Modern and other prayers and liturgies to remote parts of the mission field.

Dr Williams, speaking in Egypt, said that the Church had committed “error” in making “cultural captives” of those on the receiving end of its missionary endeavours during the days of the British Empire.

Dr Williams was addressing delegates from 20 Anglican provinces in the Church’s Global South, made up of Africa, southern Asia, the West Indies and South America. He said that the Church was in “real difficulty” here and that provinces needed to be encouraged to develop prayers and liturgies in tune with local cultures.

He said: “In all sorts of ways the Church over the centuries has lent itself to the error, indeed the sin of trying to make cultural captives, whether it is the mass export of Hymns Ancient and Modern to the remote parts of the mission field . . . the shadow of the British Empire that hangs over our own Communion or the export of American values and styles to the whole world.”

His comments come as the Anglican Church remains paralysed by the conflict over homosexuality. Delegates issued one of their strongest condemnations yet of the developments. The Global South bishops said: “The unscriptural innovations of North American and some western provinces on issues of human sexuality undermine the basic message of redemption and the power of the Cross to transform lives. These departures are a symptom of a deeper problem, which is the diminution of the authority of Holy Scripture.” The Global South is today expected to publish its proposals for a formal structure for the grouping. The leading African church, Nigeria, has already deleted all reference to Canterbury from its constitution.

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gifhttp://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif

[karen freeinchristman]

I am pretty sure that the early church didn't use "Hymns Ancient and Modern".

:P

[higgs2]

I am pretty sure that the early church didn't use "Hymns Ancient and Modern".

:P
:D :D

[gtsecc]

Should we not have a francophone BCP for Quebec? No Inuktuk BCP for Nunavit? No Cree or Dene or Sisika BCP for those First Nations? Let them all learn English, if they want to be Anglican?
I agree completely.
I was just trying to think of the most absurd example. This makes me wonder - if Ebonics is too far, but French is appropriate - how can we distinguish? Should we?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

He really has something against that hymnal, huh?

[cathromang]

He really has something against that hymnal, huh?


good one :D

[ebia]

I think he's right. Anyone who has experienced the absurdity of singing some of the very "English countryside" hymns in the middle of an Australian desert, or "In the bleak midwinter" on 40 degree celsius day just because it happens to be Christmas ought to understand the problem.

And let's stop pretending we are all using the exactly the same liturgy - just look at the variety in Common Worship alone. I don't think ++Rowan is suggesting that the liturgy be dumbed down into patronising "local" rubbish, but that it be formed around the culture and language of the people it is to serve, just as Common Worship does for England.

As for him standing up for certain issues, Rowan Williams made it quite clear before he took the job that he doesn't believe it is part of his role as ABC to impose (in any sense) his views on the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. Anyone who expects him to do so wasn't listening.

[Simon_Templar]

It seems that the ABC is condemning what is popularly called "culturalism," or the promotion of one culture over others.

Culturalism is basically a lesser form of racism. I think the ABC is dead-on if this is the case.

yea.. except for the fact that race is nothing but a couple of variations in genetic code that affect nothing of any importance.. where as culture is a set of beliefs and ideas about the way the world works, what things are important etc etc and basicly affect everything a person believes, says, does the entirity of life.

Think about what is really being said here. If it was just "everyone should have the freedom to write hymns that fit their own cultural style of music and decorate their church in ways that reflect their cultural arts, have vestments that reflect their cultural styles etc etc.

I personaly would even say sure write liturgies that reflect the cultures... BUT at this point you have to start considering.. this is the end of the beloved BCP. Right here he is saying that every culture should have its own liturgy.. ok.. then the Book of COMMON Prayer ceases to be COMMON.. there is no more standardized liturgical form for the church, each ethnic community has its own etc etc.. Now.. I am all for fellowshiping with people who don't use the BCP as it is, so that doesn't bother me too much.. however I would think it would kind of defeat one of the major points of "Anglicanism"

It becomes an entirely different matter when the ABC starts talking about the evils of exporting "values" because thats what Faith is. At this point your opening the door to an area that includes the core doctrines of the faith.

You can not spread christianity without spreading culture; values, ideas, and beliefs (the things that make up the most important aspects of "culture").

[ebia]

I personaly would even say sure write liturgies that reflect the cultures... BUT at this point you have to start considering.. this is the end of the beloved BCP. Right here he is saying that every culture should have its own liturgy.. ok.. then the Book of COMMON Prayer ceases to be COMMON.. there is no more standardized liturgical form for the church, each ethnic community has its own etc etc.. Now.. I am all for fellowshiping with people who don't use the BCP as it is, so that doesn't bother me too much.. however I would think it would kind of defeat one of the major points of "Anglicanism"
This is already the case. Step outside the boundaries of the US for a moment. THe BCP is only standard where you are. Common Worship already authorises huge variation inside the Church of England. The APBA authorises a fair degree of variation in Australia, and so on. The BCP as a standard service throughout the Communion is ancient history already.

[SirTimothy]

I think he's right. Anyone who has experienced the absurdity of singing some of the very "English countryside" hymns in the middle of an Australian desert, or "In the bleak midwinter" on 40 degree celsius day just because it happens to be Christmas ought to understand the problem.

Anyone who want to laugh, "Jerusalem" is not only in all the English hymn books... it's in the 1980 one in the USA... totally tasteless hymn even IN the UK, let alone out of it...

Timothy

[Yahweh Nissi]

Aside:

I agree completely.
I was just trying to think of the most absurd example. This makes me wonder - if Ebonics is too far, but French is appropriate - how can we distinguish? Should we?

Sorry, but what is Ebonics? I have never heard of it.

Thanks,
YN.

[itsgood]

Rowan Williams is to heresy what a used car salesman is to a purple 1980s Valiant

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Aside:



Sorry, but what is Ebonics? I have never heard of it.

Thanks,
YN.

Fa' shizzle?!?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Celebrant: Where are my doggs at?!?!?!
People: WOOOF WOOOF WOOOF

Celebrant: Let me lay it down like this; On the night before J-Dawg got filled wit' holes, he and his homies ate the religious grub upstairs in a crib in Jerusalem. He take himself some bread, see, and he broke it and said "Yo! Listen up; this is my body, and I'm givin' it to you, do this to remember me!"

After they finished, J-Dawg took him some wine, see, and he prayed over it and said "This hur' is my blood, the blood of a new promise that ain't goin' down. Whenever you drink this, do it to remember me!"

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Thank you AnglicanCrusader. We'll be sure to let you know next time we need a straw man.

The point that the ABC was making relates to the fact that as Western Christians, our culture is both Christian and Western. The problem is we sometimes struggle to know which is which.

Hymns A&M is as much Western as it is Christian, for example. Its (well, mostly, well, in places) fine contents are four part SATB block harmony using modern Western music's scales. In other places it contains - modernised and westernised - versions of - erm Ancient Western - plainsong. It is designed around organs and SATB western choirs.

The ABC is not saying it is a sin to send A&M to the West. It is not a sin to sing Western hymns in Phnom Pen. What is a problem is implying that "if you've become Christians in the Anglican communion you should sing this sort of stuff. Pray this way. Worship in this language."

And that is all.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Thank you AnglicanCrusader. We'll be sure to let you know next time we need a straw man.

The point that the ABC was making relates to the fact that as Western Christians, our culture is both Christian and Western. The problem is we sometimes struggle to know which is which.

Hymns A&M is as much Western as it is Christian, for example. Its (well, mostly, well, in places) fine contents are four part SATB block harmony using modern Western music's scales. In other places it contains - modernised and westernised - versions of - erm Ancient Western - plainsong. It is designed around organs and SATB western choirs.

The ABC is not saying it is a sin to send A&M to the West. It is not a sin to sing Western hymns in Phnom Pen. What is a problem is implying that "if you've become Christians in the Anglican communion you should sing this sort of stuff. Pray this way. Worship in this language."

And that is all.

Oh, er, I had actually liked my Ebonics a bit. I've been practicing. *slinks off*

;)

[cathromang]

Celebrant: Where are my doggs at?!?!?!
People: WOOOF WOOOF WOOOF

Celebrant: Let me lay it down like this; On the night before J-Dawg got filled wit' holes, he and his homies ate the religious grub upstairs in a crib in Jerusalem. He take himself some bread, see, and he broke it and said "Yo! Listen up; this is my body, and I'm givin' it to you, do this to remember me!"

After they finished, J-Dawg took him some wine, see, and he prayed over it and said "This hur' is my blood, the blood of a new promise that ain't goin' down. Whenever you drink this, do it to remember me!"


well, I think this is hilarious. ^_^

.... making culture more important than scripture and tradition.

All I can think of is the R.E.M. song...
"It's the end of the church as we know it...
and Rowan feels fine..."

<pours a 40 on the ground>
this is for the saints who died for the cultures...

[pmcleanj]

well, I think this is hilarious. ^_^

.... making culture more important than scripture and tradition.

We Christians fall into the same errors over and over again.

When Judaizers came to Galatia and Phillipi and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great! Now that you're Christians, you need to get circumcised and keep Torah!", they were making Jewish culture more important than the gospel. And Scripture clearly tells us they were in the wrong.

When Romanizers came to Whitby and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great! Now that you're Christians, you need to calculate Easter according to Roman methodology and adopt the liturgical forms used on the continent", they were making Roman culture more important than Scripture's message of the gospel. And the Northumbrian and Scottish bishops who voted against Whitby's proposal of acculturation continued and strengthened the Anglican tradition of analyzing Scripture and applying it appropriately.

When European missionaries came to the Americas and Africa and Hawaii and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great, Now that you're Christians, you need to dress like Christians in trousers and frock-coats and shoes", they were making European culture more important than the scripture and tradition.
------------------------

Whitby set us on the slippery slope of cultural accomodation to Rome. The intentional purging of many aspects of the ancient Celtic church that took place following the the papally-sponsored Norman invasion was an affront to Anglican tradition. The English Restoration that sought to remove the corruption that had crept into the Anglican church over the eight hundred years of our accomodation to Rome had only the remnants of our original ancient and traditional liturgies and rites to recover.

With that history, with that Scripture and Tradition, we should extol whatever leaders are calling us to avoid the same errors that were made by Judaizers, Romanizers, and Westernizers over the long history of the Church.

[karen freeinchristman]

We Christians fall into the same errors over and over again.

When Judaizers came to Galatia and Phillipi and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great! Now that you're Christians, you need to get circumcised and keep Torah!", they were making Jewish culture more important than the gospel. And Scripture clearly tells us they were in the wrong.

When Romanizers came to Whitby and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great! Now that you're Christians, you need to calculate Easter according to Roman methodology and adopt the liturgical forms used on the continent", they were making Roman culture more important than Scripture's message of the gospel. And the Northumbrian and Scottish bishops who voted against Whitby's proposal of acculturation continued and strengthened the Anglican tradition of analyzing Scripture and applying it appropriately.

When European missionaries came to the Americas and Africa and Hawaii and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great, Now that you're Christians, you need to dress like Christians in trousers and frock-coats and shoes", they were making European culture more important than the scripture and tradition.
------------------------

Whitby set us on the slippery slope of cultural accomodation to Rome. The intentional purging of many aspects of the ancient Celtic church that took place following the the papally-sponsored Norman invasion was an affront to Anglican tradition. The English Restoration that sought to remove the corruption that had crept into the Anglican church over the eight hundred years of our accomodation to Rome had only the remnants of our original ancient and traditional liturgies and rites to recover.

With that history, with that Scripture and Tradition, we should extol whatever leaders are calling us to avoid the same errors that were made by Judaizers, Romanizers, and Westernizers over the long history of the Church.
I totally agree! :thumbsup:

[Yahweh Nissi]

Celebrant: Where are my doggs at?!?!?!
People: WOOOF WOOOF WOOOF

Celebrant: Let me lay it down like this; On the night before J-Dawg got filled wit' holes, he and his homies ate the religious grub upstairs in a crib in Jerusalem. He take himself some bread, see, and he broke it and said "Yo! Listen up; this is my body, and I'm givin' it to you, do this to remember me!"

After they finished, J-Dawg took him some wine, see, and he prayed over it and said "This hur' is my blood, the blood of a new promise that ain't goin' down. Whenever you drink this, do it to remember me!"

Oh, OK. Thanks - I thought that was pretty good!

Love YN.

[cathromang]

We Christians fall into the same errors over and over again.

When Judaizers came to Galatia and Phillipi and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great! Now that you're Christians, you need to get circumcised and keep Torah!", they were making Jewish culture more important than the gospel. And Scripture clearly tells us they were in the wrong.

When Romanizers came to Whitby and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great! Now that you're Christians, you need to calculate Easter according to Roman methodology and adopt the liturgical forms used on the continent", they were making Roman culture more important than Scripture's message of the gospel. And the Northumbrian and Scottish bishops who voted against Whitby's proposal of acculturation continued and strengthened the Anglican tradition of analyzing Scripture and applying it appropriately.

When European missionaries came to the Americas and Africa and Hawaii and found Christians thriving there, and said "Great, Now that you're Christians, you need to dress like Christians in trousers and frock-coats and shoes", they were making European culture more important than the scripture and tradition.
------------------------

Whitby set us on the slippery slope of cultural accomodation to Rome. The intentional purging of many aspects of the ancient Celtic church that took place following the the papally-sponsored Norman invasion was an affront to Anglican tradition. The English Restoration that sought to remove the corruption that had crept into the Anglican church over the eight hundred years of our accomodation to Rome had only the remnants of our original ancient and traditional liturgies and rites to recover.

With that history, with that Scripture and Tradition, we should extol whatever leaders are calling us to avoid the same errors that were made by Judaizers, Romanizers, and Westernizers over the long history of the Church.

If you ever get the chance to read his entire speech, or the speeches he gave in Africa, what he was referring to was pushing the Western liberality upon the African religious community.
He was apologizing for the West pushing the alternative lifestyle bishop thing upon them and other revisionist ideals.
He was, too little too late, attempting to patch things up with duct tape.
But he was already cut out of their picture.

We're talking about more than clothes here.
As far as the hymn books...
I have never seen Bethlehem lie still - can't relate - so "O Little Town" needs to be chucked...
"We Three Kings" is really sexist. It needs to be revised to say "We Three Persons of Royal Heritage" and we certainly don't want to make anyone think we are preaching any type of monarchy...so chuck that.
Anyone who has been out on Christmas Eve knows it is anything but a "silent night" - chuck that one.
The problem with revisionism is it is all subjective - there is no objectivity whatsoever. And if you make a longstanding religion subjective to the culture it goes into...
well, Paul didn't go and become a Roman/Greek/Gentile taking on their beliefs and culture - he learned to talk like them and think like them to bring them to his Christianity - he certainly didn't blend his christianity into their beliefs and culture.

If we take back the traditions we have surrounding what we believe and allow each culture to add their own blend/influences into it, such as the BCP and the Eucharist, you don't get some beautiful new plate of religion - you get a plate of swill not fit for eating.

The flippance with which we will give up traditions and customs in order not to hurt someone's feelings about their own customs is why the Muslims think Christians are of no consequence. We talk about "Jesus" but believe and stand for nothing.

I read in Newsweek that last year the Mormon church grew more in America than any other church. Go ask them what they will compromise in order to reach people....

Wake up - before it is too late.

[higgs2]

If you ever get the chance to read his entire speech, or the speeches he gave in Africa, what he was referring to was pushing the Western liberality upon the African religious community.
He was apologizing for the West pushing the alternative lifestyle bishop thing upon them and other revisionist ideals.
He was, too little too late, attempting to patch things up with duct tape.
But he was already cut out of their picture.

We're talking about more than clothes here.
As far as the hymn books...
I have never seen Bethlehem lie still - can't relate - so "O Little Town" needs to be chucked...
"We Three Kings" is really sexist. It needs to be revised to say "We Three Persons of Royal Heritage" and we certainly don't want to make anyone think we are preaching any type of monarchy...so chuck that.
Anyone who has been out on Christmas Eve knows it is anything but a "silent night" - chuck that one.
The problem with revisionism is it is all subjective - there is no objectivity whatsoever. And if you make a longstanding religion subjective to the culture it goes into...
well, Paul didn't go and become a Roman/Greek/Gentile taking on their beliefs and culture - he learned to talk like them and think like them to bring them to his Christianity - he certainly didn't blend his christianity into their beliefs and culture.

If we take back the traditions we have surrounding what we believe and allow each culture to add their own blend/influences into it, such as the BCP and the Eucharist, you don't get some beautiful new plate of religion - you get a plate of swill not fit for eating.

The flippance with which we will give up traditions and customs in order not to hurt someone's feelings about their own customs is why the Muslims think Christians are of no consequence. We talk about "Jesus" but believe and stand for nothing.

I read in Newsweek that last year the Mormon church grew more in America than any other church. Go ask them what they will compromise in order to reach people....

Wake up - before it is too late.

So, you didn't address any of pmcleanj's points in her excellent post.

[Aymn27]

Maybe we should just go back to Latin.
Oremus.:confused: Jesus and the apostles spoke Latin? ;) ..hmmm...me thinks you're getting to Romish in your doctrines and need to submit to the Articles!! LOL

[gtsecc]

:confused: Jesus and the apostles spoke Latin? ;) ..hmmm...me thinks you're getting to Romish in your doctrines and need to submit to the Articles!! LOL
I say stuff here sometimes just to raise the hackles of low churchpersons.
I am not for a latin mass.
I am for expecting people in English speaking countries to speak English well enough to understand Rite 1.

[cathromang]

So, you didn't address any of pmcleanj's points in her excellent post.

What, that the BCP's need to be printed in Eskimo? You could rintpay emthay in
igpay atinlay and it wouldn't matter if you have nothing solid to back it with.

[higgs2]

What, that the BCP's need to be printed in Eskimo? You could rintpay emthay in
igpay atinlay and it wouldn't matter if you have nothing solid to back it with.
Wow. Well, those are not the "points" I would have chosen to address, not that I can see how you even extracted them from the post. Carry on with your agenda then, I won't interrupt you with any ideas that do not conform. :wave:

[Simon_Templar]

This is already the case. Step outside the boundaries of the US for a moment. THe BCP is only standard where you are. Common Worship already authorises huge variation inside the Church of England. The APBA authorises a fair degree of variation in Australia, and so on. The BCP as a standard service throughout the Communion is ancient history already.

Ok, assuming this is the case then (as I'm taking your word for it at the moment.. I had previously thought that the BCP was actually a BCP, again.. not that it bothers me much)
It would seem that the discussion about forcing people to accept any given liturgy is largely pointless as each national entity already has the power to adopt its own "BCP"

but again.. going back simply to the larger issue of "culture" I am continually entertained by the endophagic nature of the idea that all cultures are equal. This idea is uniquely a product of.. western culture.. it was produced by western culture and has only ever been largely accepted in western culture.. thus in adopting the belief that all cultures must be viewed as equal.. you are essentially saying that all cultures must accept the rightness of what western culture has discovered.

[Polycarp1]

I am pretty sure that the early church didn't use "Hymns Ancient and Modern".

:P

Just its predecessor, "Hymns Ancient and... Ancient" ^_^

[Polycarp1]

I say stuff here sometimes just to raise the hackles of low churchpersons.
I am not for a latin mass.
I am for expecting people in English speaking countries to speak English well enough to understand Rite 1.

And I would comment that the American Church's Rite I (AKA traditional language) is not suitable to impose on the CoE in place of the 1662 BCP from which it was largely drawn.

Liturgy in the English-speaking national churches may perhaps need some degree of uniformity. But as pmcleanj notes, we have one "English-speaking national church" that has other-language minorities. We're imposing an English/American winter on Australians and New Zealanders for whom Christmas falls four days after Midsummer Day, and Easter, with its imagery of springtime rebirth of plants and such, is in the middle of Autumn. And the Anglican Communion, as keeps getting noted in disputes about ECUSA's unilateral decisions, includes a whopping lot of national churches where English is not the vernacular. You really expect people who normally speak Hausa or Baganda or Malay to get into "V. The Lord be with thee. R. And with thy spirit"? Why not go whole hog and mandate that they use the Tridentine Mass? Or the Apostolic Liturgy of Hippolytus in the original Greek? You want Iglesia Anglicano de San Timoteo to do the English-language liturgy? That goes against the 39 Articles, if you please.

And in any case, the argument was not about prayer book liturgy, but about Hymns Ancient and Modern and related cultural paraphenalia. I don't think I've ever seen a copy of Hymns Ancient and Modern; ECUSA's Hymnal 1940 and Hymnal 1982 and a couple of renewal-style songbooks have been my meat for worship music. (And there are some remarkable evidences of true Anglican piety set to local musical forms from around the world contained in Hymnal 1982.)

[john23237]

If you ever get the chance to read his entire speech, or the speeches he gave in Africa, what he was referring to was pushing the Western liberality upon the African religious community.
He was apologizing for the West pushing the alternative lifestyle bishop thing upon them and other revisionist ideals.
He was, too little too late, attempting to patch things up with duct tape.
But he was already cut out of their picture.


Wake up - before it is too late.

As we are not allowed to debate the subject which is clearly being referred to in this post, let me simply say that I object to this post in the strongest possible terms. NO ONE "is pushing the alternative lifestyle bishop thing upon the African religious community". This statement is blatantly dishonest. We would ,however, prefer that the ..er.."African religious community" keep it's nose out of our business. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the right wing extremest in our communion who need to "Wake up-before it is too late."

[ebia]

Ok, assuming this is the case then (as I'm taking your word for it at the moment.. I had previously thought that the BCP was actually a BCP, again.. not that it bothers me much)
I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but Common Worship does not "sell itself" as a BCP. Neither did the A.S.B. Neither does "A Prayer Book for Australia". They are sold as "Alternatives to the BCP", not as "Updates of the BCP". In both England and Australia BCP is taken to mean the 1662 BCP.

It would seem that the discussion about forcing people to accept any given liturgy is largely pointless as each national entity already has the power to adopt its own "BCP"
Cultural imperialism isn't about "forcing" people.

I am for expecting people in English speaking countries to speak English well enough to understand Rite 1.
Why the heck would you refer to your Rite 1, that isn't (and never has been) even licenced in Church of England, let alone in the whole Communion? The rest of the Anglican world doesn't look to ECUSA for it's lead on liturgy, but (if it looks to the west at all) to the Church of England.

[ebia]

As we are not allowed to debate the subject which is clearly being referred to in this post, let me simply say that I object to this post in the strongest possible terms. NO ONE "is pushing the alternative lifestyle bishop thing upon the African religious community". This statement is blatantly dishonest. We would ,however, prefer that the ..er.."African religious community" keep it's nose out of our business. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the right wing extremest in our communion who need to "Wake up-before it is too late."
Can we also please remember that ++Nigeria does not represent the whole African Anglican community.

[Aymn27]

As we are not allowed to debate the subject which is clearly being referred to in this post, let me simply say that I object to this post in the strongest possible terms. NO ONE "is pushing the alternative lifestyle bishop thing upon the African religious community". This statement is blatantly dishonest. We would ,however, prefer that the ..er.."African religious community" keep it's nose out of our business. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the right wing extremest in our communion who need to "Wake up-before it is too late."
tsk tsk...all that talk about "listening", of course that is, unless you're the one that has to do it...same old liberal double standard...

[Aymn27]

Can we also please remember that ++Nigeria does not represent the whole African Anglican community.
No, but the global South represents a large majority of it and the liberal factions in the West need to recognize the fact that, not only do they, but pretty much the rest of the modern world, reject recent innovations..

[Polycarp1]

No, but the global South represents a large majority of it and the liberal factions in the West need to recognize the fact that, not only do they, but pretty much the rest of the modern world, reject recent innovations..

What "recent innovations" might you be referring to? This thread was about whether or not there was validity to Apb. Williams's comments to the effect that their churches ought to be free to use local cultural norms in designing adjuncts to litany -- chants in a Bantu-language liturgy being set to traditional Bantu chant rhythm and music, for example, or the use of Brazilian folk melodies in hymns for the church in Brazil.

"Worship in the vernacular" is a recent innovation only by Eastern Orthodox standards; it dates back to the 39 Articles.

[gtsecc]

Why the heck would you refer to your Rite 1, that isn't (and never has been) even licenced in Church of England, let alone in the whole Communion?

I said nothing of the sort.

I said, "I am for expecting people in English speaking countries to speak English well enough to understand Rite 1."

I did not say, "I am for expecting people in English speaking countries to use Rite 1."

[trooper]

First I read all of Cardinal Ratzinger's stuff ( or at least a lot of it); now I'm reading Newman. Believe it or not, both of them reallly help with this whole debate. I would encourage you all to read some of their stuff (throw in some Lewis to make yourselves feel better). Better people than all of us have grappled with this all. We all have to come to our own conclusions, but really THIS IS NOT NEW.

[gtsecc]

Liturgy in the English-speaking national churches may perhaps need some degree of uniformity.
Yes.

And the Anglican Communion, as keeps getting noted in disputes about ECUSA's unilateral decisions, includes a whopping lot of national churches where English is not the vernacular. You really expect people who normally speak Hausa or Baganda or Malay to get into "V. The Lord be with thee. R. And with thy spirit"?

No.
I said, "I am for expecting people in English speaking countries to speak English well enough to understand Rite 1." Husa is spoken in Nigeria - Is that an English speaking country?


Why not go whole hog and mandate that they use the Tridentine Mass?

In English?
I think that would be spectacular!

Or the Apostolic Liturgy of Hippolytus in the original Greek? You want Iglesia Anglicano de San Timoteo to do the English-language liturgy? That goes against the 39 Articles, if you please.

I don't think I suggested anything such as that.

[ebia]

I said nothing of the sort.

I said, "I am for expecting people in English speaking countries to speak English well enough to understand Rite 1."

I did not say, "I am for expecting people in English speaking countries to use Rite 1."
Then why would it be significant whether or not they can understand it?

[john23237]

tsk tsk...all that talk about "listening", of course that is, unless you're the one that has to do it...same old liberal double standard...

"Listening", dialogue, discussions, etc. are one thing; non negotiable demands ( as in either you do as we dictate or you will be kicked out of the communion on your ..er..backside) are something quite differant and you know it. No one who is truly liberal would ever object to discussions on the issues that face us, but insults, putdowns, and blackmail (do as we say or else) are another matter all togather.

[john23237]

Can we also please remember that ++Nigeria does not represent the whole African Anglican community.

Sorry, you are right of course. I simply borrowed the phase "African religious community" from the post I was quoting. In point of fact, the views expressed by the archbishop of Nigeria are more closely reflected by the extreme right wing element in North America than the moderate and considered tone of the church in South Africa.

[cathromang]

wow...you all just trip me out.
Let's see....it doesn't matter what the BCP contains.
It doesn't matter what is in your worship...from "incorporating tribal music" to any old cultural religious things you want to add to make people feel comfortable.

This is not a church. It's universalism.

But let's continue with the ABC after the speech, shall we?

At a press conference after the issue of the communiqué, Dr Williams acknowledged: “The divisions are quite deep, if I am honest, and there is now quite a reservoir of ill-feeling on both sides.” He continued: “Whatever happens in the long run - and I wouldn’t want to predict - there are things we can do at least to address that sense of not being listened to.”

The Church had not been persuaded of the acceptability of same-sex unions, but the question would not go away, and the Church should not suppress them or foreclose discussion and reflection, he told the Reuters news agency. “For nearly a century, the conflict over the Trinity raged between theologians and bishops, and was not resolved overnight,” he said. “I distinguish as clearly as I can a question a theologian may ask, and an action or determination a Church may take or a bishop may take. I think it is a necessary distinction for the life and health of the Church.”

Mr. Williams equates discussion of the Trinity on the same level as this thing we can't talk about. The druid amazes me.

And my agenda?? None at all...this is my last post.
We conservative traditionalists have some new churches to build - these arguments are useless and redundant.

Peace be with you.

[karen freeinchristman]

wow...you all just trip me out.
Let's see....it doesn't matter what the BCP contains.
It doesn't matter what is in your worship...from "incorporating tribal music" to any old cultural religious things you want to add to make people feel comfortable.

This is not a church. It's universalism.

But let's continue with the ABC after the speech, shall we?

At a press conference after the issue of the communiqué, Dr Williams acknowledged: “The divisions are quite deep, if I am honest, and there is now quite a reservoir of ill-feeling on both sides.” He continued: “Whatever happens in the long run - and I wouldn’t want to predict - there are things we can do at least to address that sense of not being listened to.”

The Church had not been persuaded of the acceptability of same-sex unions, but the question would not go away, and the Church should not suppress them or foreclose discussion and reflection, he told the Reuters news agency. “For nearly a century, the conflict over the Trinity raged between theologians and bishops, and was not resolved overnight,” he said. “I distinguish as clearly as I can a question a theologian may ask, and an action or determination a Church may take or a bishop may take. I think it is a necessary distinction for the life and health of the Church.”

Mr. Williams equates discussion of the Trinity on the same level as this thing we can't talk about. The druid amazes me.

And my agenda?? None at all...this is my last post.
We conservative traditionalists have some new churches to build - these arguments are useless and redundant.

Peace be with you.

:(

[SirTimothy]

Mr. Williams equates discussion of the Trinity on the same level as this thing we can't talk about. The druid amazes me.

Dr. Williams, please. Most Reverend Dr. Rowan Williams. The word druid is better translated as bard, simply that he's a poet and a singer, rather than anything else... Honestly...

Timothy

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Cathromang - exactly what are you trying to imply by describing Rowan Williams as a "Druid"?

I am well aware that he is an honourary druid of the Welsh Eisteddfod. This is of the same religious consequence as being a member of the Guild of Writers.

If you're trying to imply anything else, you're veering into dishonesty, or at best ignorance.

[higgs2]

wow...you all just trip me out.
Let's see....it doesn't matter what the BCP contains.
It doesn't matter what is in your worship...from "incorporating tribal music" to any old cultural religious things you want to add to make people feel comfortable.

This is not a church. It's universalism.

But let's continue with the ABC after the speech, shall we?

At a press conference after the issue of the communiqué, Dr Williams acknowledged: “The divisions are quite deep, if I am honest, and there is now quite a reservoir of ill-feeling on both sides.” He continued: “Whatever happens in the long run - and I wouldn’t want to predict - there are things we can do at least to address that sense of not being listened to.”

The Church had not been persuaded of the acceptability of same-sex unions, but the question would not go away, and the Church should not suppress them or foreclose discussion and reflection, he told the Reuters news agency. “For nearly a century, the conflict over the Trinity raged between theologians and bishops, and was not resolved overnight,” he said. “I distinguish as clearly as I can a question a theologian may ask, and an action or determination a Church may take or a bishop may take. I think it is a necessary distinction for the life and health of the Church.”

Mr. Williams equates discussion of the Trinity on the same level as this thing we can't talk about. The druid amazes me.

And my agenda?? None at all...this is my last post.
We conservative traditionalists have some new churches to build - these arguments are useless and redundant.

Peace be with you.

:wave: