THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER:
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
Here the Directory is so unlike the Prayer Book in dealing with the problems posed by nominalism in a territorial conception of the church. Taking matters in reverse order, concerning the burial of the dead,
On the 'solemnization of marriage', the Directory states categorically that 'marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind'. While the XXXIX Articles deny that 'matrimony' is a sacrament of the gospel' (Art. XXV), to this day there remains a somewhat mystical regard for church weddings; so this directive is no less necessary in some quarters. Yet because the Scriptures give directions to Christians about marriage 'in the Lord', the Assembly judged it 'expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word'. Thus the idea of a strictly secular marriage was ruled out. Few may quarrel with this appeal to expediency, a criterion generally anathema to the Puritan mind. At the same time, none can object on scriptural grounds to a purely civil ceremony. Indeed, the Bible provides no specific guidance either way. Despite the impact of his presence at the marriage at Cana, the Lord Christ was no more than a guest. He didn't even bless the marriage as the Prayer Book almost implies. Among the Jews, marriage was at one time a merely civil ceremony; not until the later Middle Ages did the presence of a Rabbi become obligatory at Jewish weddings.35 Even in post-apostolic Christian times, marriage was a private ceremony. Only with the advent of sacramentalism were marriages blessed at special services, i.e. the eucharist.36 That said, there is no violation of principle in the Assembly's ruling provided stress is placed on the need for life-long marital commitment and fidelity under the Lordship of Christ rather than on some mystical, sacramental blessing conveyed by a priest or minister. Unlike the Genevan church,37 the Assembly advised that weddings should not take place on Lord's Day.
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
PART 5
A Liturgy for Life
Before we focus particular attention on the public worship of the Lord's Day, it should he remembered that 'worship' embraced the whole of life in the minds of our forefathers. God was to be acknowledged, loved and obeyed in all the experiences and decisions of daily life. Accordingly, the BCP in keeping with centuries of Christian tradition made provision for the great and momentous occasions in life from the womb to the tomb. What we immediately think of as 'worship' was a special instance of communal Lord's Day worship, where the Lord is pleased to 'command the blessing' (Ps.133: 3). Thus against a background of common Sabbath desecration, even in less secular times, the Directory supplied practical spiritual guidance on 'the sanctification of the Lord's Day'. While this concern was justified, it was recognized that in the vast majority of English parishes, then as now, the only certain contact people had with the church was through 'hatchings, matchings and despatchings'.
Before we focus particular attention on the public worship of the Lord's Day, it should he remembered that 'worship' embraced the whole of life in the minds of our forefathers. God was to be acknowledged, loved and obeyed in all the experiences and decisions of daily life. Accordingly, the BCP in keeping with centuries of Christian tradition made provision for the great and momentous occasions in life from the womb to the tomb. What we immediately think of as 'worship' was a special instance of communal Lord's Day worship, where the Lord is pleased to 'command the blessing' (Ps.133: 3). Thus against a background of common Sabbath desecration, even in less secular times, the Directory supplied practical spiritual guidance on 'the sanctification of the Lord's Day'. While this concern was justified, it was recognized that in the vast majority of English parishes, then as now, the only certain contact people had with the church was through 'hatchings, matchings and despatchings'.
Here the Directory is so unlike the Prayer Book in dealing with the problems posed by nominalism in a territorial conception of the church. Taking matters in reverse order, concerning the burial of the dead,
'When any person departeth this life, let the dead body, upon the day of burial, be decently attended from the house to the place appointed for public burial, and there immediately interred, without any ceremony'. Because of superstitious abuse, readings, prayers and singing 'are to be 'laid aside'. At most, the minister if he is present is only to encourage the mourners to engage in suitable meditations.
The pressure to eulogize over the doubtful virtues of the irreligious is thus removed. The minister is also delivered from perjuring himself. No longer does he have to say beside the graves of the ungodly 'Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed….' However, one wonders if the Directory's blanket solution goes a little too far. May not a graveside oration comfort the relatives of one who is a 'dear departed brother/sister'? The question of funeral sermons was hotly debated, the Scots objecting to what the English wished to retain.33 One notes with interest that Knox's Liturgy left it an open question, permitting where Calvin's Genevan service book had enjoined that the minister go to the church and make 'some comfortable exhortation ... touching death and the resurrection'.34 With reference to human mortality, the Directory reminds ministers of the pastoral and evangelistic opportunities of sick visitation: 'He is to admonish' the people 'in time of health, to prepare for death; and, for that purpose, they are often to confer with their minister about the estate of their souls; and in time of sickness, to desire his advice and help ... before their strength and understanding fail them'.
The pressure to eulogize over the doubtful virtues of the irreligious is thus removed. The minister is also delivered from perjuring himself. No longer does he have to say beside the graves of the ungodly 'Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed….' However, one wonders if the Directory's blanket solution goes a little too far. May not a graveside oration comfort the relatives of one who is a 'dear departed brother/sister'? The question of funeral sermons was hotly debated, the Scots objecting to what the English wished to retain.33 One notes with interest that Knox's Liturgy left it an open question, permitting where Calvin's Genevan service book had enjoined that the minister go to the church and make 'some comfortable exhortation ... touching death and the resurrection'.34 With reference to human mortality, the Directory reminds ministers of the pastoral and evangelistic opportunities of sick visitation: 'He is to admonish' the people 'in time of health, to prepare for death; and, for that purpose, they are often to confer with their minister about the estate of their souls; and in time of sickness, to desire his advice and help ... before their strength and understanding fail them'.
On the 'solemnization of marriage', the Directory states categorically that 'marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind'. While the XXXIX Articles deny that 'matrimony' is a sacrament of the gospel' (Art. XXV), to this day there remains a somewhat mystical regard for church weddings; so this directive is no less necessary in some quarters. Yet because the Scriptures give directions to Christians about marriage 'in the Lord', the Assembly judged it 'expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word'. Thus the idea of a strictly secular marriage was ruled out. Few may quarrel with this appeal to expediency, a criterion generally anathema to the Puritan mind. At the same time, none can object on scriptural grounds to a purely civil ceremony. Indeed, the Bible provides no specific guidance either way. Despite the impact of his presence at the marriage at Cana, the Lord Christ was no more than a guest. He didn't even bless the marriage as the Prayer Book almost implies. Among the Jews, marriage was at one time a merely civil ceremony; not until the later Middle Ages did the presence of a Rabbi become obligatory at Jewish weddings.35 Even in post-apostolic Christian times, marriage was a private ceremony. Only with the advent of sacramentalism were marriages blessed at special services, i.e. the eucharist.36 That said, there is no violation of principle in the Assembly's ruling provided stress is placed on the need for life-long marital commitment and fidelity under the Lordship of Christ rather than on some mystical, sacramental blessing conveyed by a priest or minister. Unlike the Genevan church,37 the Assembly advised that weddings should not take place on Lord's Day.
No comments:
Post a Comment