Kevin Kallsen and Archbishop Beach break down the latest news from the ACNA, GAFCON, CofE and the best vacations.
Order ACNA Book of Common Prayer http://bcp2019.anglicanchurch.net/index.php/purchase/

39 COMMENTS

  1. Oddly, cannot see the video on this page, but no problems on Youtube, and can see other videos from past episodes on Anglican Ink pages.

    Minor tech issues aside, thanks Kevin and Archbishop Foley. After the past week of news, really needed a “pastoral visit” even if only via video. Be assured of our prayers for +Justin Welby and +Josiah Idowu-Fearon. I will try to go a step further and do my best to avoid snide remarks in AI comments.

  2. Prayerbook. Meh! The PDF doesn’t download correctly for me to Apple’s Books program. I printed it as pdf and it still opens in Preview without a title. It’s tough to search for something without a title. DID ANYONE TEST BEFORE SHIPPING? Oh. Maybe the prayerbook committee members want us to use modern language on a dead system (Windoze). /s One quick look shows ‘Draw near with faith and I will refresh you’ is changed to …and I will give you rest. Change for the sake of change. Personally, I like to be refreshed. If I want rest, I’ll go to bed earlier. I suspect the small parishes will wait until the 2nd or 3rd edition before buying the printed version; 30-40 years.

    • ” I will give you rest.”

      A traditionalist upset and complaining that the 2019 went back to the KJV 1611 Bible instead of the BCP 1928. Amazing.

      • ReebHerb and Dr P.
        I am a bit confused here. Is this a discussion about the “comfortable words” (ie- Matthew 11:28), (to which Dr. P’s note applies) or is this something else- I am used to “draw near with faith” (per ReebHerbs comemnt) preceding the confession (in the 28)”Draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your comfort and make your humble confession to God, devoutly kneeling”.

        • This is about “comfortable words” and the beautiful prose that disappears over time. The paraphrase of the 23 Psalm sounds much better to my ears and is the traditional one recited outside church compared to the more ancient and exact translation. It doesn’t really matter in my life time. The 1928 Prayerbook will do fine and I can’t see the new prayerbook bringing about any aha changes that will enlighten or change our faith. Of course, someone will come along and try to mandate the new book. One of the founding parishes of Cascadia from REC has the ’28 book written into their articles of incorporation. They pulled back from direct participation in ACNA.

          • ReebHerb,

            I apologize for being “pedantic”. I agree with your sentiments. I note that Fr. Marcus Kaiser (from the liturgy task force) said on one of the earlier threads that there will be a traditional language version of the prayerbook coming out in a couple years- so maybe we have something to look forward to. On Matthew 11:28, the Douay Rheims bible (I forget the date, after the 1552 BCP but before the KJV) has it translated as “refresh” and my best guess is that some of the New Testament translations available to Cramner had it that way as well, as it appears in all the prayerbooks back to the 1549.
            I also am a miserable sinner.
            Blessings,
            TJ

          • Do you mean the Danker lexicon? The BDAG revision of about 20 years ago was done singlehandedly by Fred Danker who spent five years of long working weeks on it. I remember in his introduction he wrote that after five years his wife now had the dining-room table back.

          • Danker’s revision is the 2000 edition. It was usefully reviewed by Terry Roberts in the Review of Biblical Literature (I think that’s the name). Terry tutored me in Homer and Euripides about ten years ago and his knowledge for one without a doctorate shows how unnecessary doctorates are for depth of learning (written by one who never had a hope of getting a doctorate in anything!). The review is worth reading.

          • I’m scratching my head now trying to remember were the older version is used. Holy Unction perhaps? I’ll ask Fr. Bill the next time I see him.

          • aTo
            ” the revisionists of the ACNA Prayer Book”
            “to please fundamentalists who look upon the KJV as the equivalent to the tablet the original Ten Commandments were written on”

            The task force you dismiss as ” the revisionists of the ACNA Prayer Book” are actually the restorers of the prayer book. It puts back much of what was lost in TEC’s 1979. Perhaps what is quite obvious to almost all of us but evidently lost to you is that this version of the 2019 is primarily to address the needs of those folks who have adopted the 1979 and are used to its language, which would be just about everybody under 50, and a great number of folks older, who did not encounter TEC or Anglicanism until later in life. Personally, I would prefer the original Cloverdale psalms myself, but I can see that as probably a minority opinion within congregations.

            As to the KJV, it is still the “authorized version” of the majority of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. Yes, there are better translations for users of modern English, but there are those of us for whom Genesis 1, or John 1:1-14 or most of Matthew just don’t “sound right” unless the KJV is used. My personal assumption would be that the reason for including the KJV version of Psalm 23 is that a great many people know it by heart in that version. Unless your pdf of the 2019 is different than mine, few others (if any, I haven’t made it all the way through yet) are printed in 2 forms like the 23rd.

          • aTo,
            The point of my comment was about you adopting the demeaning terms “revisionists” to describe the Liturgy task force, and “fundamentalists” to describe those who prefer to worship using the KJV. Why you felt insulting ACNA leadership AND everyone who uses the Authorized Version of the Bible was appropriate to a discussion of the 23rd psalm escapes me, but no doubt you had your reasons.

            The point of your response to me beginning “tjmcmahon. I don’t think that you like semantic…” is to avoid addressing your labeling much of the orthodox Anglican world as “revisionists” and “fundamentalists”, and to go off on tangents about Gafcon, Andy Lines, and ACNA potentially dominating Gafcon, and who will adopt what prayer book.

            When you can’t defend your own words, you try to distract everyone’s attention by going off in some other direction.

          • It is clear that had you meant “reviser” that is the word you would have used. You chose “revisionist”- knowing full well that the primary meaning is “noun
            an advocate of revision, especially of some political or religious doctrine”

            And it would be obvious in any case from the use of the word throughout Anglican orthodox discussions for the past 20 years, that references to “revisionists” are to those who practice “revisionism” – they are changing the doctrines of the church in line with culture.

            No one in ACNA is pushing for a “revision” of Christian doctrine.

            You say

            Nor am I applying the word fundamentalists to the Anglican world. (Talk about going off on a tangent.)

            But anyone reading can see that is exactly what you did. You specifically stated that the reason for including the KJV version of psalm 23 in the ACNA BCP is ” to please fundamentalists who look upon the KJV as the equivalent to the tablet the original Ten Commandments were written on.”

            Given that everything in the ACNA prayer book is intended primarily for Anglicans, you are clearly identifying Anglicans using the KJV as “fundamentalists.”

            As to character assassination, you have managed to malign the leadership of ACNA, the liturgy task force, everyone who uses the KJV. I will leave it to the readers and moderators to decide if I have fallen to your level.

            But as to your constant attacks and aspersions against orthodox leaders in ACNA, as Dr. Professional said- “Just stop”

        • I qualify as one of the miserable sinners. This is upsetting to me. Prose won’t make it go away.

    • Hmmm…Did you open it in standard Adobe and then copy it to Apple Books (IIRC that way it works on ours for a pdf) or try to download it directly into the library (which IIRC does not work for ours)?
      I haven’t tried with the BCP per se because I put it on my Linux derivative PC where the download took 10 seconds and it runs perfectly.

    • aTo, if they had not made changes, there would have been no need for a new book.
      You say “Who were the lords of prayer omission? Did the omissions come from on High or from a lower location?”
      You must not have been paying any attention over the past 10 years of this process. This has been the most open process possible. The names of everyone involved have been available throughout. You, I and anyone else with a suggestion could write or email any member or just email liturgytaskforce@anglicanchurch.net .

      But, since you haven’t bothered to look it up, go to the following link and scroll down to the bottom of the page, where you will find the task force and its various sub committees.
      http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/texts_for_common_prayer#task-force

      Note that the page also includes many of the resources they relied on, and every report they have made over the years. And note that every one of those reports was noted in a press release, so you had the opportunity to keep up with the progress and give input throughout.

      Based on the 15 people on the various committees that I have communicated with over the years (only on a couple occasions in reference to the 2019 BCP, but mostly for pastoral support of one kind or another), I would state that this is an amazingly gifted group of people.

      • Me, a nobody, sent in at least 6 comments and suggestions to the committee at liturgytaskforce@anglicanchurch.net

        I was also part of the lobbying effort by another website to restore “miserable offenders.” We were not successful, but we were heard and responded to respectfully. Another effort was successful in keeping “apart from your grace” out of the main text and only included as an option.

        Those who wouldn’t participate in the process can’t really complain about the result of the process.

      • Yes, I do see that the entire comment of iTo’s that I responded to has been deleted or so heavily edited as to be unrecognizable. Should I respond to any of his comments in the future, I will be sure to quote him in the entirety, so that he cannot delete the portions that are embarrassing to his position.

    • What I regret is that the new prayer book contains the “passing of the peace,” which is my very least favorite 1979 innovation to the Holy Communion service. Too bad, but not worth having a fit over it.

      • It can be very disruptive and morph into a giant group hug-a-thon. Be careful of excessive hugging. I’ve seen that go awry. Is it the break in the cadence of the service? There is a way to offer peace properly and sincerely to those on ether side and front and back. Tough to pull off and then settle back into the service.

      • Absolutely. Let’s please not quibble over the minor issues but unite around and act upon our Lord’s clear teachings.

      • Most of the parishes I was part of growing up (which is to say, more years prior to 1979 than I care to mention) “the peace” was part of the Mass (Anglo Catholic).
        Today’s version in some parishes is, for me, a major distraction- 5 minutes or more of kids (when there are any) at “recess” and adults chatting with each other about tee times and tea times and gossiping about anyone who is absent that Sunday- sort of a preview of coffee hour.
        A moment for reconciliation of any enmity within the congregation makes sense to me, 10 minutes of people checking their cell phones and betting on the afternoon football game does not.

        What probably bothers me most about the 79 was the adoption of the word “Eucharist” in place of Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper. Not that there is anything wrong with the word per se, but that it seems to lend itself to all manner of concatenation (“U2charist” for instance) that demean the most sacred of mysteries, and become advertising slogans.

      • The service killer for me is announcements with comments and discussions that go on for ever and ever amen. There is need for a 90 sec rubric. It was during one of these episodes I first read the service for Churching of Women in the 1928. Never heard of a new mother availing herself of being churched. Don’t know why. It seems to be a simple and deep way to give thanks.

        • “the 90 second rubric”- that is a wonderful idea. While too late to get it into the 2019 prayer book, perhaps it could be added to a future hymnal to limit the guitar solos in praise bands. Maybe there should also be a rubric for projections, so the projected head of the clergy or soloist is not larger than the largest cross in the sanctuary….
          On the service for the Churching of Women… I don’t know of any use of it either. There was recently an article somewhere on the service being used for Queen Victoria after the birth of one of her children. Would be interesting to know whether it remains in use in the Global South, where the Mother’s Union and other women’s Christian organizations have a prominent role in many provinces.

      • In my 1928 parish, our rector uses the Anglican Missal. After the consecration, he says, “The Peace of the Lord be alway with you.” We respond, “And with thy spirit.” No hand-shaking or hugging until the coffee hour.

        For one thing, this “peace” event can be very uncomfortable for introverts like me. For another, in both Episcopal and Anglican places, I have experienced exchanging the peace and then being totally ignored after the service, including at coffee hour. It becomes hurtful.

        My opinion is that if you’ve been uncharitable towards a member of your congregation, you ought to approach that person with apologies and reconciliation well before the service begins, and not try to slide through it with a handshake at “the peace.”

        • I attended the TEC church in town two years without anyone saying, “Hello, how are you, drop dead, go to hell, or anything.” Had to insert myself into church life. We had 44 pews and I took care of the two in back where I sat. There was a poor woman that sat back there with her only child that hadn’t been removed by the state. Harmless. Quiet. Wore frumpy clothes from the ’50s from Value Village. Interestingly the social justice warrior women in the congregation would go on and on about ministering to the poor but have nothing to do with her. “She’s dysfunctional!” “Yeah, that’s right. She is dysfunctional but she walked through the damn door didn’t she? Can’t you include her in something?” It still upsets me and I think she still attends.

          The good grandmothers and mothers didn’t want her eleven year old son going to camp because he didn’t meet their high behavioral standards according to the youth director. I acknowledged her concerns, pulled the $230 tuition out of my wallet, and told her to make it happen. He did fine.

          Sometimes I wonder if there isn’t something perverse about myself wanting to hang around church people.

        • I agree completely with your comment on “passing the peace”. I think it is ill-advised to impose it on people whoever they might be and whether they are casual visitors or whatever. When it was the custom in our church, instead of saying “Peace be with you” I would simply say “Hello, how are you today?” or something less inane. When I was on the organ stool I kept my head down or appeared to be checking the music.

      • It’s an innovation in terms of medieval and modern church practice.

        My favorite experience of The Peace was in some RC masses in India. People turned towards those nearest them, placed their palms together, and bowed. No hugging, no handshaking, and minimum disruption of the service.

        • That is, they placed their own two palms together, not a “high five” involving the other person. 🙂

  3. Abp Beach please come and rescue the C of E from the hands of Welby! We need you in Canterbury…Welby is taking Christians on to “the rocks” because he is definitely NOT following “the instructions”! Kyrie eleison.

  4. Archbishop Beach’s admission that some church plantings do not continue seems to be a first.

    Will you just stop? Just stop. This fact is stated within the first five minutes of every presentation on church planting I have attended in an ACNA context. How many have you attended? It’s standard boilerplate at these events.

    This report is from 2014, noting that at that point there had been 488 successful ACNA plants and 100 unsuccessful ACNA plants:

    https://www.americananglican.org/current-news/5-years-acna/

    And that just popped up on the first page of a simple Google search. I didn’t bother going to a second page and finding more, since you couldn’t be bothered to search for yourself. Obviously you’ve not paid attention to anything ACNA leaders say about church planting until today, or you wouldn’t have thought to do the search anyway. Instead, you act as if you’ve discovered something new that you think might make a good hand grenade to throw into the conversation.

    You say that this “seems to be a first.” On what basis do you make that observation? It can’t be that you have actually been paying attention. That the statement of this fact “seems to be a first” is laughable.

    Just stop with the nonsense. Knock off with sowing dissension among the brethren. Just stop it. Stop it. Just stop.

    • OF COURSE some church plantings fail. This is the real world, not Wonderland. The percentage of successes sounds quite good.

      • I suspect it happens both ways. Within driving distance of my house is one very large ACNA parish which began about a dozen years ago with some people meeting in homes for Evening Prayer. They called a pastor, using personal connections to find one. Driving the other direction, there was an Anglican priest who began holding services, and the people did not come.

          • The group who met for Evening Prayer were lay people. They called a CofE priest to be a temporary pastor, so they could have Holy Communion, and after the ACNA was established, they called an ACNA priest to be their rector.

          • Goodness. The now-large ACNA parish began with lay people, called a CofE priest as a temporary pastor, and then called an ACNA priest as rector after the ACNA was established. The CofE priest was Michael Green, who was not, so far as I know, a bad apple.

            The small plant which failed had a part-time American Anglican priest, REC to be specific. I know the priest; he is trained and biblically orthodox. People just didn’t come. REC plants, like ACNA plants, have been reasonably successful on the whole. This one was ad hoc, with a local couple trying to build local attendance. They never got the critical mass of people. Nobody’s fault; certainly not the priest’s.

  5. Yer man reaches for his Bible.
    He quotes from 2nd Thessalonians 3!
    Alleluia!!
    It has been my privilege and pleasure to work with some fine American Christians. They knew the Word, they were balanced, humble and they led by example. Archbishop Foley Beach reminds me very much of Art Carlson, who founded Project Kibbutz. A great Christian and a great family man.
    Thank you Lord for Foley Beach.
    .

Comments are closed.