"What Anglicans Believe", by David L. Edwards

[srigdon]

From "What Anglicans Believe," by David Edwards (Mowbrasy, 1974), p. 43:

"Those who are married begin to learn, far more deeply than they ever knew before, what love means. Here are some of the words of the marriage service in church. 'I take thee to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish, till death us do part... With this ring I thee wed; with my body I thee honour; and all my worldly goods with thee I share...'

That is the Christian understanding of marriage, for here are two people giving themselves to each other. Sex before marriage cannot be that. You cannot be married as an experiment to be abandoned when you meet a problem, as you break off a love affair before marriage. That is not real marriage - it is like getting out if the water seems a bit cold. And until you are married, you cannot tell what it will be like. Just having sex physically will not show you - that is like putting a toe into the water. Real marriage is like diving into a swimming pool. You either swim or you don't - it is your decision. But real marriage is such a big decision that it is madness to rush into it.

A marriage becomes strong as both husband and wife learn to put up with each other's faults and make each other happy. They become content to sacrifice each other's inclinations."

From "What Anglicans Believe in the 21st Century," by David Edwards (Continuum, 2000), p. 38:

"Those who are married begin to learn, far more deeply than they ever knew before, what love means. Here are some of the words of the traditional marriage service in church. 'I take thee to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish, till death us do part... With this ring I thee wed; with my body I thee honour; and all my worldly goods with thee I share...'

When other words are used, they have the same essential meaning.

A marriage becomes strong as both husband and wife learn to put up with each other's faults and make each other happy. They become content to sacrifice each other's inclinations."
---------------

Edwards also chose to delete without modification the following from his 1974 edition:

"One of the things that makes a man is self-control, especially in sex - for one of the things an intelligent, sensitive man learns is that most women enjoy sexual intercourse only if they feel relaxed, secure and loved. You are not respecting a girl if in fact you are running the risk of hurting her physically or emotionally. You are not loving her if you want to use her body as a machine to give yourself thrills.

And if you are a girl, you may get either hurt or coarsened in your emotions if you say 'yes' to the physical side of sex before you are ready for marriage. Don't do it just because he wants to! If he really respects you he will not expect you to hurt or cheapen yourself. And don't believe him if he tells you it would show you if you would be happy married to him. It would show you very little - except that he feels free to have sex with women to whom he is not married.

What matters most is that men and women should honour each other, because real love grows through real respect. That is the most important argument against having sex with your girlfriends or your boyfriends."

[Sojourner]

Edwards is confusing his own thinking for what Anglicans believe. He presents commentary and personal interpretation of Prayer Book language calling it (falsely or ignorantly) a statement of Anglican belief.

[Canadian Phil]

You're right, of course. David Edwards is interpreting and commenting on the Prayer book's language of marriage. Clearly, that is his own interpretation, although one could argue that it is in the tradition of Anglican thought.

My question back, however, is whether we can or should speak in general about Anglican beliefs? A lot rides on this because much of the debate in Anglican blogsophere has centred on Anglican identity and there really is little more than separate versions of what it means to be Anglican. How do we decide which is right? Or do we have to?

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

That was the point I was obliquely making. To speak of a unique Anglican theology oversimplifies the various strains of thought that have historically marked Anglicanism. While the extreme Protestantism expressed in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI, Elizabethan times tempered that with a broader appreciation of more Catholic thought and practice. The sacramental theology of the non Jurors is far different from that of the Puritans. I am, more and more, persuaded that the center that held "Anglicanism" together for 400 years was the historic Episcopate and the use of the Book of Common Prayer.

[anglicansablaze]

Sojourner, have you actually read the first Edwardian Book of Common Prayer, that was issued in 1549. "Extreme Proetstantism" does not discribed it. Unreformed Catholicism might - so unreformed that it was three years later replaced by the second Edwardian Book of Common Prayer, a Prayer Book that was much more reformed in its theology. In the meantime, Bishop Gardiner enjoyed himself pointing to the attention of Archbishop Cranmer how unreformed Catholic the 1549 Prayer Book was. While much more reformed in its theology than the 1549 Prayer Book, the 1552 Prayer Book was hardly an example of "extreme Protestantism". The Prayer Book that was used in the reign of Elizabeth the first, by the way, was the 1552 Book of Common Prayer with some minor revisions. The words of administration were altered. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer combines the words of administration of the 1552 and the Elizabethan Prayer Books. The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Tudor Settlement chartered a course for the Anglican Way between two extremes - Roman Catholicism and radical Protestantism, represented in the 16th century by some of the more extreme forms of Anabaptism. Classical Anglican can be characterized as a moderate form of Protestantism - closer to the Protestantism of the Swiss Reformers than Luther. In today's politically correct world in deference to traditionalist Anglo-Catholic sensitivities it has become the trend to refer to the Anglican Way as "Reformed Catholicism" - whatever!