May 302013
 

anglicanTHE second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth: and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

Of the Names of the Homilies.
page7image1432

Of the right Use of the Church.
Against peril of Idolatry.
Of the repairing and keeping clean of Churches.
Of good Works: first of Fasting.
Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.
Against Excess of Apparel.
Of Prayer.
Of the Place and Time of Prayer.
That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue. Of the reverend estimation of God’s Word.
Of Alms-doing.
Of the Nativity of Christ.
Of the Passion of Christ.
Of the Resurrection of Christ.
Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
For the Rogation-days.
Of the state of Matrimony.
Of Repentance.
Against Idleness.
Against Rebellion 

I admit, I have no idea why some of those are there. Some of them may be a bit outdated. Anyway, discuss…

 Posted by at 3:55 am

  104 Responses to “XXXV. Of Homilies”

  1. And somewhere over the hills I hear the cry of Tevye singing “Tradition…”

    Sorry, I have nothing kind to say about adding to the Word of God. Enjoy the Day.
    -mic

  2. -and I hear Friend saying “I will not go to second level with you!”

  3. Mike,

    Every group, including yours, has traditions.
    Some are just older than others.
    It is the height of ignorance to call these ‘adding to the word of God”.

  4. What these do is present clear confessions of how the Anglican church understands particular doctrines and disciplines.
    They were written to people who had previously been steeped in the doctrines and traditions of Catholicism, so clear teaching and explanations were necessary.
    One must remember that in the 16th century everyone belonged to the church…and the church they were part of had just changed pretty radically.

  5. I have to kinda agree with mic.

    What is the purpose of affirming a tradition you don’t even understand?

  6. Josh,

    Do Baptists have a statement of faith?

  7. “One must remember that in the 16th century everyone belonged to the church…and the church they were part of had just changed pretty radically.”

    But this is still the Anglican confession, right? Every Anglican must confirm these? It’s no different than the Catholicism that was broken from back then. Reform has to always keep reforming. If a confession of faith no longer makes sense, it must be changed.

  8. @ 6 – Yes, of course, and it is updated every few years.

  9. Remember that in the 16th century religion was determined by the monarch.
    One could have spent their lives growing up in the Roman Catholic church, then in the space of a few days be compelled to become a Protestant…and vice versa.
    These articles explained both to the common worshipper and the clergy the differences in the faiths.

  10. Josh,

    Last time I checked the conservative Anglican position on these matters hasn’t changed…nor should it.

  11. Baptist do have a statement of faith but it undergoes periodic revisions to update it as to issues . Speaking here of the Southern Baptist who used the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message but who revised in a few times notably 1997 the year I left.

  12. “These articles explained both to the common worshiper and the clergy the differences in the faiths.”

    Which was perfect in the 16th century, but many of these are useless today. To be asked to affirm things which no longer relate to my life in any way is the definition of empty tradition.

  13. I don’t understand MIC talking about “adding to the word of God”. What the heck is he thinking?

    MIC, when you go to church, does your pastor just read from scriptures? … or does he add his thoughts and commentary?

    Is he adding to the word of God? I suppose that eliminates you from quite a reading list of books on “the faith” – and it shows.

  14. I’m at a loss to see which of these doesn’t apply to me today.
    There are updated BCP’s…mainly updates in language.
    I love this version.

  15. My comments are more geared towards a guy like Reuben. Per his comments, he has apparently affirmed these articles in becoming Anglican, but doesn’t why they are needed.

    If you understand all of this, and still affirm it, then my comments aren’t directed towards you.

  16. I’m at a total loss as to why anyone would object to having , as part of the regular teaching in the liturgy, explanations of sound doctrine and practice.

  17. @ 16 – OF course, I am not against that. I am against affirming things that I do not understand.

  18. Reuben is a brand new Anglican…my guess is that over the course of time he will come to appreciate these very deeply.
    They were (are) taught in liturgy exactly so people can understand and affirm what they believe.

  19. I have to take Trey to school…back in a bit.
    This is when I dont like moderation…

  20. It just seems odd to me to say, “I’m an Anglican!”. Then we post what Anglicans believe, and not understand it.

    Personally, I would want to understand my beliefs before I confirm them. If after understanding the articles I decide I agree with them, then I will be Anglican. Doing it the other way is the exact sort of traditionalism that I am against.

  21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogation_days

    Cool, I’m in for Rogation. There is nothing wrong with asking for a little help.

  22. Well, the one on Matrimony may be changing in the CofE.

    They recently voted on it and it did not pass, but there is great support, not for “gay marriage” per say, but rather for “equality” in marriage.

    I was discussing it with an Anglican friend of mine who is a curate in the church, and soon to be priest. I mentioned that although I support equal rights and would not object to “civil partnership,” I did not like the term “Marriage” being changed. I went on to say that as I understand it the biblical definition of marriage is one woman to one man. My friend said, “wait a minute. Where is the Bible do you see one man and ONE woman?” She went on to remind me that all through the Bible men are married to more than one woman and even the sons of Jacob came from more than one woman.” I said “well what about elders in the church being the husband of one wife.”
    “Yes!” She said, because obviously there must have been many accepted marriages in the church that were NOT one husband to one wife.”

    It was a very interesting discussion.

  23. Josh, seriously, you say you are a Christian and do you understand everything in the Bible? I know I don’t.

    Something I find very interesting about the Anglican church is that there is an extremely WIDE berth of belief one can have and still be an Anglican, even an Anglican leader.

    Again, it is (I believe) because they trust that our position in Christ is because of what Christ has done and Who He is, rather than the perfect points of doctrine about Christ that a person may happen to believe in.

  24. “Josh, seriously, you say you are a Christian and do you understand everything in the Bible? I know I don’t.”

    I do not, but that is my exact point. I see the Bible as the word of God, some of which I have to accept on faith. I articles like this as traditions of man, which I will not accept by faith.

    To make it clear…I am not saying Anglicans are going to Hell, only pointing out why I could not be one.

  25. Nonnie, I’ve had those conversations.

    I go back to the beginning (like Jesus did when He spoke on marriage).
    Adam, Job, Lot, Abraham, Isaac – we see one wife. The first guy to multiple wives, Lamech, is hardly a pillar of the faith.

    Jacob got tricked into a 2nd wife, David’s multiple wives were in violation to God’s word in the Law of Moses and caused him lots of trouble. Certainly Solomon’s did as well.

    There is no serious argument that God’s will was for anything but only one wife per husband – but like with so many other examples, the true history is recorded, warts and all, for these are real people and their real life stories.

    To say God endorsed multiple wives is like saying God endorsed adultery because David is recorded as doing that too.

  26. Well while we are parsing God’s endorsement of David’s shenanigans we should take note that the covenant line goes through Solomon which goes through the illicit affair with Bathsheba. Did God plan that? Or did he redeem that? Wait that is a heresy for other days right?

  27. Steve, I hear what you are saying and I agree with you, from what I read in the holy Scriptures..

    However, what do you say to David being “a man after God’s heart” and Solomon being wise???? Yet they had many wives.

    I read about the grace of God, I see pastors divorcing their wives, staying in ministry, no one saying a word, and yet “we” scream and protest over 2 people who love one another and yet say they believe in Christ, and want to commit their lives to one another in marriage. . I’m not promoting same sex marriage, I am just saying I am perplexed by what I see being lived out in the Christian life. Like I commented last week. Why could women not have short hair a couple of generations ago? Why is it now OK for women to not cover their heads in church? So many things have changed over their years. I’m just expressing questions I have….not about my personal faith in Christ, but about how we, as Christians are to respond to changes that others are pushing for. I can remember how other churches told their youngins’ to stay away from CC because of the men having long hair. 🙂

  28. “Mike,

    Every group, including yours, has traditions.
    Some are just older than others.
    It is the height of ignorance to call these ‘adding to the word of God”.

    Not everyone is part of a group tho, some just worship the Lord and gather together with Saints without labeling themselves. You seem to thrive on labels. I don’t label myself other than i love the Lord and the fellowship of the Saints and reading the word. Not everyone fits into a box. And yes some of these are just Mans traditions which if not solidly based in the Word of God mean absolutely nothing to our Faith.

  29. Solomon,

    What you fail to understand is the your gathering, your “worship”, and your interpretation of the Word all have their genesis in tradition.
    At it’s most basic level, It’s a Protestant tradition, not an Orthodox or Catholic one.
    What you believe about all the doctrines above is from a traditional interpretation.
    Every group has creeds and confessions…some write them down, some don’t.

  30. BD,

    Both. 🙂

  31. Nonnie,

    I just love you…the courage and depth to ask those kind of questions while holding a conservative framework is a so encouraging to me.

  32. Some examples of Tradition that I am sure you all appreciate:

    1. A clear definition of the Holy Trinity (as opposed to Arianism, which almost won the day.)
    2. A clear explanation of the two natures of Christ
    3. The canon of the New Testament. (Yes, the table of contents in you Bible is the result of Tradition.)

    When some people hear the word Tradition they automatically hear the phrase “Vain traditions of man.” When I hear the word Tradition I automatically hear the phrase “The Holy Spirit guiding the Church.”

  33. Looks like my new glasses didn’t fix my typo problem 🙁

  34. The phrase “a man after God’s own heart” is horribly misunderstood when it comes to David and our application of it to his piety and morality. WHAT WAS GOD’S HEART? First, when Saul became king it was a departure from the heart of God toward the heart of the people who wanted a king. And God gave them a king after their heart, a king like them. Samuel felt rejected but God said to Samuel, ‘they have not rejected you but me’ in other words Samuel the people did not reject YOUR rulership over them they rejected GOD’s rulership over them, because God used judges and HE was the king over Israel.

    David was a man after God’s heart precisely because AND ONLY BECAUSE David re-enthroned God over his people. Now don’t react, hear this. When David became king he did a significant series of things. First, he found the THRONE of GOD and brought it to the City of David. Second, he disrobed from royal clothes wearing priestly clothes to lead the process of GOD’s THRONE into the midst of his people. Third, he wrote Ps 24 which announced GOD as the KING OF GLORY who SHALL COME IN. In other words David enthroned God (honoring the heart of GOD to rule his people) and humbled himself. David in this act was a foreshadowing of Jesus, who had the right to be king but humbled himself. David did not assert his right to be king (to the offense of Saul’s daughter Michael) but humbled himself. David by humbling himself demonstrated that he understood and embraced GOD’s heart to be king of his people.

    Then God honored the house of David (I Sam 7) promising an heir of David that would reign on the throne. The beauty of course is that God had the incarnation waiting to be revealed in the wings (which David saw Ps 2, Ps 110) thus the desire of God to be KING over his people would be fulfilled.

    Ok not exactly on topic but I get very excited about such things and I think the “man after God’s heart” concept is reduced by our application of it to piety and morality.

  35. covenant line goes through Solomon which goes through the illicit affair with Bathsheba
    —————————————
    Not totally. The kid from the adultery was taken from this world.

    The relationship was redeemed and after David married her they did have a child in the Messianic line (after of course arranging for her husband to be killed first)

    Now Tamar’s kid on the other hand…. 🙂

  36. BD,

    That was worth the time to read…very interesting, indeed.

  37. This to me is where the providence of God is such a mystery.

    A great example is Jacob and the 12 sons. We know God wanted 12 sons as part of His plan for the future nation of Israel. That’s a hard task for any one woman, especially given the dangers of childbirth in those days, even if one woman could get pregnant that many times.

    Yet, we can’t BLAME God for what was truly a horrible sin by Laban – but we see how God used all of this, including shutting the women’s wombs at various times and the involvement with the maids – in order to get His will of the 12 sons.

    If someone thinks they have all that figured out, they are far wiser than me. 🙂

    So what an encouragement it is to me (us) that we do have to make our choices in this life but God knows even the future sins and obedience and is still able to make all things work together for His plan and purposes.

  38. Michael, I know what a wretch that I am. I guess that gives me pause to throw others under the bus. I know that Jesus took and takes me right where I am. I struggle with so many questions. I truly want my words, my actions and my life to honour God and His word, but I see so much junk going on in the “church” that I wonder if it grieves the heart of God more than the sin the church is screaming about. Thank you for letting me ask my questions and I am thankful for you and the pastors here who will take the time to dialogue and encourage us in the Word.

  39. Steve,

    Of course I knew that also. But we often accuse people who remarry of committing adultery by remarrying. Which of course David DID and God redeemed but again that is off topic. I was just saying that Bathsheba was NOT David’s to take and yet God redeemed the mess. As he often did.

    Your Tamar reference is a favorite story of mine. The Tamar story turns the idea of righteousness toward the NT Wright definition IMO. Wright more or less identifies righteousness as covenant faithfulness rather than personal morality (which is not excluded) but in the case of Tamar. In Genesis 38 Tamar is called “more righteous” than Judah but why? Because her sin was less? NO, I think it is because she understood the covenant and her NEED to get pregnant to carry on the promise of God. So she seduced and tricked Judah to impregnate her which was the DUTY of Shelah the remaining son of Judah. Old Judah had withheld Shelah because his other two sons died in her embrace (metaphorically). Tamar fulfilled the covenant … working out the righteous plan of God. How much did she understand? Enough to go to extreme measures at least apparently.

  40. Steve said, “The relationship was redeemed and after David married her they did have a child in the Messianic line (after of course arranging for her husband to be killed first)”

    I think that is the point….Marriage “healed”, redeemed the adultery… a horrible sin, punishable by death. (OT) I am thinking that many homosexuals are wanting Marriage to “heal” redeem, their situation…to make their relationship right before God.

    These are just questions, conversations I’m wrestling with. Thank you and BD for weighing in on this!!

  41. Nonnie,

    I couldn’t agree with you more about what we emphasize in the church vs. what we rail against in the culture.
    Your questions (and mine) come from a heart set on knowing God, not denying Him…and those need to be asked until we can rest in the answers.

  42. I’m agreeing with you Dread – good word(s) here.

  43. I noticed in the above “Against Gluttony and Drunkenness”

    Last night in our journey through Proverbs I noted the same thing

    Prov 23:20

    Seems like a textbook example of how today a distinction is drawn where one does not seem to exist in Scripture.

  44. Our God is an awesome God. And He does indeed reign.

    Just stopping to think of all the incredible lives that were conceived in sin, out of wedlock, is enough to blow my fuse.

    Thinking of the person with a lovely family and children, but it is the second marriage, and how that person may truly regret the initial divorce, but then ponders that if there had not been that divorce, these new children would not have even been born.

    God is incredible. And He is good.

  45. Amen, Steve (your 46). You said and I fully agree! “Thinking of the person with a lovely family and children, but it is the second marriage, and how that person may truly regret the initial divorce, but then ponders that if there had not been that divorce, these new children would not have even been born.”

    I guess my wrestling comes with us (the church) limiting what God can do in other peoples’ lives in spite of their particular sin. I know what I read in the word, but I also know what other inconsistencies (to the Word) are lived out and approved of in the church today. That is why I struggle with the venom in the preaching against equality in marriage that others are yearning for. It is such a difficult matter in my mind.

  46. Nonnie,

    It’s that inconsistency, combined with a lack of love, that has reduced our voice to a choke….

  47. Michael
    “Mike, Every group, including yours, has traditions.
    Some are just older than others.
    It is the height of ignorance to call these ‘adding to the word of God”.

    I have been working (thank Jesus for the job) so I didn’t get a chance to see this till now. Calling someone ‘ignorant’… That was unkind.

    Who ‘moderates’ your comments?
    -mic

  48. “I think that is the point….Marriage “healed”, redeemed the adultery… a horrible sin, punishable by death. (OT) I am thinking that many homosexuals are wanting Marriage to “heal” redeem, their situation…to make their relationship right before God.”

    Nonnie, I am not sure what you mean or where you are going with this. In my estimation, marriage will never heal a situation. Only God can cause the healing and repentance is part of allowing God to do that.

  49. Mike,

    I said your comment was ignorant…and it is.
    If you’ve read here any length of time, you will have seen me admit to my own ignorance on certain topics and issues…and I try to avoid commenting on things which will expose it.
    Nobody moderates me because it’s my blog.
    You are a guest here.
    If that is odious to you, you have your own blog.

  50. Yes, the blog is named after him, it’s his blog and he is the Moseserator LOL

  51. Andrew, thank you for the comment. I appreciate your input. David and Bathsheba were fornicating, committing adultery and even murder. After they were married, their relationship was not “sinful” but instead, evidently blessed, and they brought forth the lineage of the Messiah. Everything about their relationship was WRONG and yet look what God did. Now take that line of thinking with a homosexual relationship that turns to “marriage.”

    Again, I am not saying I affirm this, I am just sharing the “arguments’ from that perspective that friends and I have discussed and wrestled with.

  52. Believe,

    I pay for it, I do the work on it, and I’m responsible for it.
    That doesn’t mean that most are going to agree with me, it means it’s going to be a place where people can reason together without one voice dominating.
    If that’s odious to you, you have your own blog as well.
    That’s my last word on the topic.

  53. @53, I’m not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Blog ownership = responsibility. The person responsible for the content makes the choices over what content is allowed.

    Which is no different than any other published material (newspaper, magazine, etc.). A blog is not the same thing as a social media network, nor should a blog-owner feel constrained to provide an outlet to anyone wishing to say something.

  54. Oops..the post numbers got changed. Sorry about the faulty cross-reference…

  55. Nonnie,

    Is the question “does marriage sanctify the sin”?

  56. Yes, Michael, I think that is a part of the question. I know I have heard Bible teaching that a believer should never date an unbeliever and not be “yoked” or married to an unbeliever, but if they do that…if they commit that “sin,” should they get married, then God blesses that marriage. The believer sanctifies the marriage, makes the children holy…(1 Cor. 7)
    I guess that is how I am approaching my question.

  57. My first thought is that God will not sanctify a homosexual union because the union itself is inherently sinful and would continue to be so even after the “marriage”.
    It’s a very provocative question and my first thought is often wrong…

  58. I got no beef with it Michael, I was just kidding and figured it would get moderated anyway. I think it’s the only real way to maintain some sense of control and fairness in this sort of “community”/”theology debate”/”church criticism” format.

    It is your blog, you are the leader and should take responsibility for it and you are. I think the poll shows that the Consensus sees the value in this new format and I voted “yes” for it as well.

  59. “After they were married, their relationship was not “sinful” but instead, evidently blessed, and they brought forth the lineage of the Messiah. Everything about their relationship was WRONG and yet look what God did. Now take that line of thinking with a homosexual relationship that turns to “marriage.” ”

    Nonnie,

    Not everything was WRONG. Heterosexuality activity is not “intrinsically” sinful and hence is apparently redeemable. With your example above about God redeeming and blessing the relationship and bringing about the lineage of the Messiah would not be possible with a homosexual couple. Its just not possible to pro-create with homosexual sex.

  60. I guess I will be a barbarian on the gay marriage matter. Same sex relations do not constitute the covenant of marriage. The lawmakers can decide to regulate gay relationships if they think they have a compelling interest in doing so but that will not make it a one flesh union. That will not make it marriage.

    Construction people may have to change the language of male and female parts to disengage from the idea that the man and the woman actually fit and belong in a union. It may one day be considered hurtful to the gay community that our construction language speaks as if there is a proper marriage of parts because they fit. Political correctness has no boundaries.

    I will always be kind to people who are in sin whether homo or hetero, my church is proof of that but I will not be able to say that it makes a proper union. It simply does not.

    It is ironic that those who want the government out of the bedroom are so determined to have government ratify their bedroom practices.

    There it is; obviously I am a hate monger and a homophobe and redneck. But hey everyone is coming out of the closet.

  61. Well, if these marriages are redeemed and blessed by means of the children that come from them, then we certainly see that would not apply to any homosexual relationship, marriage or otherwise.

  62. “It is ironic that those who want the government out of the bedroom are so determined to have government ratify their bedroom practices.”

    That is truth!

    Thank you all for your patience with me and allowing me to ask these questions. I struggle because I know what I believe, but it is so difficult to answer questions and challenges of others, who I love and respect, who quote scriptures…. and we see the examples in the same Scriptures how God has dealt with sinful people that He calls His own.

    I will just have to rest in truth, grace and love…they do have have to contradict one another. I can love and extend grace to others, but it doesn’t mean that they are speaking truth. Sad thing is that many of the folks who don’t agree with me (what I believe to be truth), refuse to extend that same love and grace to me.

  63. This issue is not whether your perception of God approving or disproving a Gay Marriage, the issue is that “marriage” in our American context, is a largely a government sanctioned contract which many legal implications including visitation, IRS issues, estate issues, etc that permeate a bunch of things (from a legal context) in our society.

    We are still not a Theocracy and the issue of Gay Marriage is still not a Religious issue, it is a Government/Legal issue and from that context, homosexuals have the high ground and will continue to have the high ground.

    If parts of the “church” don’t want to sanction the marriages as “of God” and don’t want to give their blessing on it, then so be it, they should have that right…as long as it doesn’t lead to inciting violence and/or discrimination toward homosexuals.

  64. Many churches currently don’t “sanction” abortions, yet the abortions are completely legal and acceptable from a Government standpoint.

  65. Nonnie,

    Thanks for your honesty. I am struggling with a situation at my church where a 23 year old woman just got engaged to a 80 something year old guy that she met in nursing home she worked at. I can’t find anything Biblically wrong with this but it doesn’t seem like really anyone approves of it. I’m not really sure the best way to treat this most unusual couple.

  66. I wrote: “I will just have to rest in truth, grace and love…they do have have to contradict one another. ”

    Should have been “They DON”T have to contradict one another.”

  67. Years ago in the home school world a book went the rounds, promoted by a well-known leader in the HS movement back in the day (Mary Pride, if anyone remembers her). The gist of the book was that if you were divorced, you needed to get back with your original spouse, even if you were already remarried and had a houseful of kids with the 2nd spouse. A lot of people were torn up by this teaching, really heart broken. The author had a lot of verses, etc, as usual. At one home school meeting someone brought the book and we discussed the topic. Some women were very broken hearted as they believed they would go to hell if they didn’t leave the father of all their kids and go back to the alcoholic brute they had divorced. I picked up the book and ceremonially threw it in the trash can.

    Sure, divorce is bad. It’s more of a threat to American kids than the homosexual agenda ever was or ever will be. But what’s done is done, repent and move on.

  68. This is an interesting wiki about the homilies. Lots more history than just seeing the name of them listed. I found it helpful
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Homilies

  69. London,
    Thanks for that link. I found it helpful as well.

  70. London,

    Thank you for that link.

    I’m a new Anglican. I don’t have an issue with any of the Articles. I feel like I have been in lied to my whole life. Now I have a clear head, a clear heart and I worship The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit with reverence. Sunday is not about the pastor, or the worship team or the message. Sunday is all about God. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. We all participate in the service, there is reading of scripture, there is a sermon, and there is repentance, forgiveness and the Eucharist. There is the creeds, the peace between each other and for the first time in my life I don’t have someone judging me on Sunday.

    The Homilies is like an Anglican systematic theology. Plus having knowledge of Church History is a must for any Christian. How do we know where the Church is going if we don’t understand where it has been? Book reading is a good thing. It is good to have knowledge. I imagine Heaven will be a bit more respectful towards God and worship of him. No slain in the spirit, no pastor zip lining onto a stage (there is a church in co that the pastor does this) We will be in the throne room worshiping our Maker. It is serious stuff. I take my faith more seriously now, I am reverent now. I was not when I was in cc. To be perfectly honest non denominational church makes me want to vomit. I say this not to be offensive but because my experience with cc as well as with the new reformed non denominational church has been less than God affirming.

    Carry on.

  71. Sigh. I just wrote a lengthy post and realized I was just rambling. The homosexual issue is such a tough one and all I can do is pray.

    That sounds like a cop-out in some senses, but I mean it deeply. To pray for God’s wisdom that is married to His compassion and grace. Praying that I will speak with truth, but not rhetoric in my discussions. I have a few friends on FB who have left Christianity and are in homosexual relationships.

    Sometimes I am surprised they hang around..but I am glad they do. I’m thankful for the discussion here today…good wrestling with the topic.

    On the issue of tradition…I remember when we joined the Christian Reformed Church in Lynden, WA. I had pretty much just been involved in Calvary’s up to that point, at least since I had chosen where I would attend. We had to go through the new members class, which if I remember correctly was about 8 weeks. We learned the basics of what the church believed and we decided if we wanted to align ourselves with that.

    I think one of the insufficiencies of the contemporary church is the ease of switching between congregations. There is not the commitment to learn the history and understand the teaching before claiming that congregation. That doesn’t mean we know it completely or that we don’t have issues where we might disagree (we had a couple, which we voiced and dialoged with the pastor about until we were comfortable that we could agree to disagree and still be part of the community)…but it means that we think seriously about what is being taught and what the specific foundational thoughts of the leaders are.

    When that foundation is laid out in such a coherent and even exhaustive way, the leadership is able to lead knowing those who are committed to the fellowship have done so with understanding and not casually.

    As Michael said, we are all beholden to tradition in some way. And Josh…I understand your comments that it goes against your grain to agree to a set of beliefs when you don’t really understand them or when they seem irrelevant. However…I think sometimes we are so desiring for that sense of ‘home’ and sense of being known that we are willing to align ourselves in the spirit of continuing to discover. I think Reuben and Becky know the basics of the Anglican faith and are willing to continue to deepen their understanding based on that foundation. Is that fair?

    Alright…back to trying to stay focused on writing up a Bible curriculum for my boys. I realize every time I pop in here that I wish I had more time to be online. The boys (including Steve) and the girl are happy to have clean clothes and food on the table, though 😉

  72. Sarah,

    If I was rich, I’d pay you to write followups on my comments…well said.

  73. I refuse to have traditions. That’s my tradition. Maybe I’m iggernent or slow but I don’t find much outside scripture that’s attractive or compelling. I mostly go along with the group I’ve thrown my hat in with but even they aren’t theologically perfect. They love me though, in a Jesus sort of way.

  74. I remember when we joined the Christian Reformed Church in Lynden, WA<<<

    My son and his family attend a Christian Reformed Church in Lynden! I wonder if it was the same one?

  75. “Sure, divorce is bad. It’s more of a threat to American kids than the homosexual agenda ever was or ever will be. But what’s done is done, repent and move on.”

    Interesting as I went through an unbiblical divorce and always wondered what the right way to handle that situation was. Go back and reconcile or stay single. We both had a lot on our shoulders as we both have custody of our kids and let’s just say with us the blended family siutation was tuff. The concern with going back is putting all the kids thru that hurt again and I don’t want that to happen to hers or mine. There were other issues but none that would dictate a biblical divorce.

  76. The gist of the book was that if you were divorced, you needed to get back with your original spouse, even if you were already remarried and had a houseful of kids with the 2nd spouse. A lot of people were torn up by this teaching, really heart broken
    ———————————————————————-

    It’s interesting there is a part of the Law of Moses that says if a person has divorced, and then remarries, they are not to ever go back to the first spouse. And while I understand the Law is not our guide for today, it is still “holy, just and good” so that little detail alone should destroy the idea that Xenia referenced…

  77. Josh, way back there at 5 or so (I am on my phone, mobile version has no numbers)

    I am not 100% on board with all things Anglican, nor do I really need to be. And yes, I am an officially catechised Anglican. The problem here is not with the catechism. There are some things I dont get about this article, such as apparel, or the cleanliness of the church. Dont really care.

    Thats all.

  78. they are not to ever go back to the first spouse.<<<

    Right! There was a chapter in that book telling why this didn't apply. I don't remember what their explanation was.

  79. Josh, you will probably find this hard to believe and pretty awful on top of that, but I joined the Orthodox Church not knowing what they believed about many things. I just chose/ choose to accept it all. I would ask “What do I believe about this?” It all comes down to authority and once I determined (I believe in a miraculous way) that the Orthodox Church had the authority, I just accept everything they teach. I am still discovering what I believe about certain things.

  80. This fluffy stuff about tradition…

    I have to chime in on that.

    Every church is built on tradition, as has already been said.

    Sing three songs, make announcements, pass the plate, sing two more songs, 45 minute sermon from a chapter by chapter, verse by verse study, 4 more songs, prayer, one more song, and every 4th Sunday, communion with a short sermon to get everyone feeling guilty enough to cry, so you have the “right heart” before taking the elements. Friday night prayer meetings. Wednesday night youth group. It is all tradition. I did it for years at CC.

    Vineyard has its traditions. Baptists have theirs. It is the same everywhere you go, the problem is when people make the claim that no such tradition exists. People have their way of doing things, and typically take pride in it.

    Landing wherever things work for you does not make one devoid of adding or subtracting from scripture, nor does it deny tradition. Because the “love” is there does not signify a thing. Love abounds anywhere where people are all cool with the routine. Break it, and all that stuff goes out the window.

    The value I see in tradition is like what my wife said up there somewhere. It removes the focus from the man. It places the focus on the Word and the Sacrament. So I will bend over backwards to align myself with a tradition (even if I am not 100% down with everything theologically or in practice) that does such things to derail personality driven ambition in the church.

    See, I spent a good many years believing things about myself and others that were extra-biblical, traditions that have no value or place in the church. Lets start with laying out a home run sermon crafted so well that people line up to tell you how awesome that was after the last song and dismissal. I have come to the conclusion that I sought that approval at some point in my life. Many a pastor is sustained by the affirmation of the church. That, to me, is horse s**t. Focus in even the slightest sense has shifted. The weight of the service was based on something or someone, and it was not the Almighty God.

    Worship services. Dude with girl pants and funny glasses leads. Two backup girl singers who always wear shirts that are too tight (intentionally) doing the spiritual backup. Bass player with lots of cool tats.

    It is all tradition, but some traditions shift the focus to God, some to man.

  81. Xenia @81, I was, am much the same. I choose to embrace it. Willfully.

  82. “It’s interesting there is a part of the Law of Moses that says if a person has divorced, and then remarries, they are not to ever go back to the first spouse. And while I understand the Law is not our guide for today, it is still “holy, just and good” so that little detail alone should destroy the idea that Xenia referenced…”

    In my ex CC church, I knew woman who was divorced and re-married 3 times. The 3rd time was with a CC pastor at the church. When she divorced she got back with her second husband and was living with him when she hosted our fellowship. It was almost as if the church annulled the third marriage and re-instated the second even though the third was done by a CC pastor (who was divorced himself). I don’t know what to make of all this but I am glad not in that church anymore because it is confusion to me.

  83. Nonnie wrote at # 23:

    Something I find very interesting about the Anglican church is that there is an extremely WIDE berth of belief one can have and still be an Anglican, even an Anglican leader.

    Isn’t it ironic though how the creeds of the early fathers allow for such a wide latitude of human freedom? Even though they were midwifed in the days when there was no such thing as The Rights of Man, they are remarkably free of authoritarian dogma.

  84. Re: Xenia’s #69 and Steve’s #78

    Is there a bible reference for this:

    “It’s interesting there is a part of the Law of Moses that says if a person has divorced, and then remarries, they are not to ever go back to the first spouse.”

    I have a friend that is on a crusade demanding that divorced people go back to their first marriage.

  85. Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
    Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
    Deu 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
    Deu 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

  86. Thanks Xenia

  87. RE: Kid Dynomite @ # 86
    Just so long as your friend doesn’t demand that my daughter be stoned to death for not having the prescribed tokens of virginity, he is free to practice his faith as he sees fit.

  88. Kid Dyomite RUN do not walk from that friend. He has replaced the Law of Moses with the Law of Paul or Jesus. Either way RUN.

  89. I got sucked in! It’s all Facebook banter. I avoided it for a while but the only pushback he was getting was from my wife. He has gathered quite a following of “friends” that support his view. I finally caved.

    I hate running unless there is a soccer ball involved……but I will take your advice into consideration.

  90. The book (which is still in print and probably still admired in certain circles) teaches remarriage after divorce is adultery and adulterers don’t go to heaven. The only solution is to leave your current spouse, no matter if

    1. You have repented (if necessary) of your divorce
    2. If all this happened before you became a Christian
    3. If you and your previous spouse now have children w/ new spouse

    All this will send you straight to hell, says the author.

    Well he’s missing something. What if, like millions of people, they fooled around before they ever got married to spouse #1, maybe with some kid in high school. According to the Bible, sex makes you “One Flesh” and since this author takes the One Flesh idea so seriously, what he should really say, if he wants to be serious about it, it that everyone should return to their first lover, whoever and wherever that person is. But no, he says just back to the first legally married spouse. If he’s going to be consistent (and this author is all about consistency) then he’s missing the boat.

    I wonder how many people have been destroyed by this teaching. I don’t know anybody who has actually followed this advice.

  91. AND, the Lord said that you are committing adultery if you even look at someone with lustful eyes. If looking at someone w/ lustful eyes = adultery and if adultery with someone means you and that someone are now One Flesh, then to be consistent, you need to go back to the first person you ever looked upon with lust in your heart. Jimmy Carter, are you paying attention here?

    You can never be legalistic enough. Crazy Rule A will lead to even crazier Rule B just as surely as night follows day.

  92. Xenia….sorry, this is first chance I had to get back on. We we at First CRC…in Front street. Paul Hanson was the pastor when we were there.

  93. I’m way late to this thread, but BabyD, in your #35, I’ve never heard of “a man after God’s own heart” referred to in any other way than how you described it. Maybe I just haven’t been listening.

  94. “You can never be legalistic enough.” Xenia, that is so true!

  95. I’m missing something. Maybe I’m thinking of holy traditions or righteous traditions or biblical traditions or spiritual traditions. I don’t equate the way we do everything in our churches or our lives as tradition. If I get up at 5 am I don’t call that tradition. I call that habit or lifestyle.

  96. Hey Folks!

    Looking back over the thread, I see I came across more harsh than I intended. In trying to explain what would keep me from being Anglican (or Orthodox, or Catholic for that matter), it looks like I disrespected Reuben. He was just the quick example, as he is the one who posted the thread, but I should not have used it.

    To Reuben and Becky – I sincerely apologize. I am glad that you have found a place that you feel at home. It is wonderful that you can submit your will for the betterment of a church body, and I am certain that you will grow and be a huge blessing in such an environment. In my poor attempt to explain why I couldn’t follow such a tradition it looked like I was condemning all those who do follow such a tradition. That is obviously not true. I think you guys are in the right place doing the right thing, and I applaud you for it.

  97. Gary,
    it seems odd that you would take pride in doing your “church stuff” by habit or lifestyle vs the thought out ways of those who have come before us.

  98. Babs, your 35, yes I agree. I was not saying anything different in my reference to David being a man after God’s own heart. Not at all. Yes, a sinner who knows the greatness and goodness of God, and seeks to walk humbly before God….. He is a man after God’s heart because he is seeking and serving God, “enthroning Christ,” ….not because of his moral fortitude.

    I really appreciate all the grace and dialogue with so many of you, and how you took time to interact with me. Like I said, I can rest in what I believe, yet there are so many questions that can arise when we are literally confronting the everyday lives of “good” men and women. Thus my questions about the changing ideas in the church over the years about divorce, women’s place in the church, and homosexuality.

  99. I just want this thread to get over 100 comments.

  100. MLD,
    I’m taking you out of my ignore box to address your last post cuz it was so shallow and condescending. First, you ascribe pride where I didn’t. Second, you assume it’s an either/or dilemma. Third, you infer church is merely habit or lifestyle as though it was always so. Fourth, you lump every old way as equally good by merely being thought out. Four projections of yourself in one sentence. The sentence is yours. I don’t think Martin Luther would approve of your instant condemnations.

    Church stuff doesn’t involve pride any more or less than the rest of my life. You missed the first sentence of that post. When I read ‘church stuff’ I think of an old closet in a building called church that’s full of junk. Even a dummy like me knows that habits have a beginning. I wasn’t born in church and I rejected the church of my youth with all it’s traditions. What traditions I have now I have because I have thought them out.

    You argue for the sake of getting one up on others. I’m not talking about your heart. I’m talking about your words.

    I really enjoy these blogs. I’m getting an education in between the lines.

    Here’s a question for the group- I like getting to church about 20 minutes early. Is that habit or tradition?

  101. I am torn on the idea of using prepared sermons. I think it can be hard to preach effectively using someone else’s words. Yet, I wonder if there isn’t some collective wisdom which can be shown by simply reading the sermon without commentary. People want their own standup comedy act prepared just for them.

  102. If you mean using someone else’s sermons I wouldn’t do it.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

%d bloggers like this: