Open

I was tempted to call this book "Ritual Abuse" and thereby specifically point to the sometimes cavalier treatment of the classic Anglican Rites/Services by modern liturgical commissions. However, because my aim is to be positive and commend the biblical Gospel, I chose the present title, which more accurately speaks of my desires and intentions.

Another title, "Conspiracy Unveiled," was suggested to me. This was meant to indicate a major theme of the contents, resting on two pillars. The first is the claim, made by the late Dr. Urban T. Holmes, that there was an intention within the Standing Liturgical Commission of the Episcopal Church of the USA to deceive this Church concerning the nature and extent of the doctrinal changes incorporated into the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (see further, Chapter 9 below), for the liturgists allowed the faithful to think that the doctrine was much the same as that of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The second is the cumulative evidence which I present in chapters one through eight concerning the wide scope of the actual doctrinal innovation. Conspiracy is a strong word, but it would have drawn attention to the apparent intention in both the American and Canadian Churches to "deceive" the faithful and make them believe that the new prayer books are different only in structure and language, and not in theology, from the older ones.

I must confess to my reader that in the 1970s when trial liturgies were much in use in my home Church, the Church of England, I took little, serious theological interest in them (even though I wrote a

[Page 2]

booklet on the proposed revised Ordinal). My time was taken up with teaching divinity, research for and writing of articles and books, and being a part-time parish priest. It was not that the trial services passed me by as ships in the night; rather, seeing them, I did not carefully examine them. I guess the truth is that I trusted the members of the English Liturgical Commission and I heard with sympathy the cry within the Church that liturgical change was inevitable and should not be resisted.

The parishes where I assisted in the 1970s, or where later (in the 1980s) I was the incumbent, all used the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and saw it as their first Prayer Book. Yet I did notice and sometimes commented that some but not all bishops seemed to prefer the new rites and were active in persuading clergy to convince their parishes to use them. Further, I was aware that some clergy were actively involved in removing all traces of the 1662 BCP from their churches and placing in the pews only the new Alternative Service Book of 1980. Even so, since I was busy writing books on subjects not related to liturgy, I must confess that I never examined the new ASB carefully.

However, having arrived in the USA in late 1990, I entered a situation where only rarely could I use in public worship the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which is the American equivalent of the English 1662 BCP. In fact, I had to use the new American prayer book of 1979 for the daily offices and the daily Eucharist. This situation forced me into a careful examination of the contents of the new generation of Anglican prayer books, which began to appear for trial use in the 1960s. What initially I feared was the case in fact has turned out (in my judgment) to be the case – the changes in structure and doctrine incorporated into the new prayer books

[Page 3]

of the Anglican Communion have been substantial. I indicated this point, without developing it, in my book commending the classic Common Prayer Tradition, Knowing God through the Liturgy (1992).

This second book from my pen on Anglican Liturgy may be seen as a report on what I discovered about the theology written into the new books in the USA and Canada. It would have been interesting to me to have included the English ASB of 1980 in my study, but I decided that it was best to keep only to North America where the two new prayer books of 1979 and 1985 bear a distinct family resemblance. Since this book is a theological report, it is placed on the table for discussion. I expect that I have made some mistakes and that not all will agree with my judgments on all points. Indeed, I expect some people to be very angry with me, for they have invested much of their lives in the new prayer books and hate to see them criticized! Even so, I look for, and I hope for, some rational discussion.

However, what I have written is what I believe to be the case. I cannot blame anyone else for my errors of judgment! I have discussed the various topics with friends and I have benefitted from their insights, comments and criticisms. So I wish to record my gratitude to the following – Cris Fouse, Charles Caldwell, Sam Edwards, David Ousley, Jonathan Ostman, David Curry, Jeffrey Steenson, David Mills, Rod Whitacre, Charles Lynch, Ted McConnell, Michael La Rue, Jerome Politzer, Gordon Griffith, Robert Shackles and Vita, my wife. Janet Hildebrand and Don Hook deserve a very special word of thanks both for their proof-reading and sub-editing: their command of English grammar and style is exceptional. Crews Giles and Sherry Baker kindly helped me with the technical matters of word processing.

[Page 4]

It was a pleasure for me to dedicate my recent book, The Art of Meditating on Scripture, Zondervan, 1993, to Diane and John Ott of the American Prayer Book Society: here I thank them again for their kindness and help in getting this very different book into print. They worked hard to publicize and distribute my Knowing God through the Liturgy in 1992 and for this I remain grateful to them.

This book is dedicated in the first place to Mrs. Virginia Schenck and then, in the second place, to others, who, like Virginia, have been and remain faithful to the historical Faith and Liturgy of the Anglican Way, as that is set forth in the Common Prayer Tradition. May they see in their lifetimes a return to Liturgy which is faithful to Holy Scripture, sacred tradition, and the genius of the Anglican Way.

Epiphany 1993 Peter Toon

[Page 5]

INTRODUCTION

Each of us probably knows a family which has recently gone through a major upheaval or crisis – be it a move from one place to another, the tragic loss of a member of the family, or a great reduction in income. Yet how many of us have known a family which systematically planned to remove from its life together the actual means which gave it its historical identity and continuity and which kept it together in a meaningful way?

Until the very recent past, the Anglican Communion of Churches (a family and fellowship of independent churches, each of which freely chooses to be in the Communion) was bound together by a common heritage and loyalty. Part of this heritage is the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) first designed and used in England from 1549 to 1552 and then adapted for local use around the world in many editions since then.

Since the 1960s, the decade of tremendous shaking of the inherited values in western society, Anglicans have witnessed the gradual introduction of new forms of worship based on a different structure as well as on a modified doctrine. The new rites have often been called Alternative Services to distinguish them from the regular services of the BCP. First of all, these appeared as trial forms; then they became alternative forms; and finally, practically speaking, they became for many the only forms. So the common bond of common prayer was broken – not merely between national Churches but also within them. Thus one of the major family resemblances of Anglicans has been virtually eradicated. To all with a sense of history and tradition this is regrettable.

[Page 6]

Today there is very little official support in Canada and the USA for parishes which decide to be authentically Anglican by using the traditional BCP. (The exception is of course within the small Continuing Anglican Churches of North America.)

Offices, Rites and Liturgies

This book is about reforming the liturgy, specifically the printed text of the services used in Christian worship. Further, in particular, it is about the doctrinal content of the texts. At the same time I hope that it will encourage the renewal of liturgy. For the sake of clarity I make a distinction between reforming and renewing the liturgy. It is possible to use a near perfect liturgical text and not to have a renewed liturgy. Renewal occurs through the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in and upon responsive believers who use the written text for the glorifying of their heavenly Father through the Lord Jesus Christ, their Savior. Liturgy is of course the symbolic action of both officiants and congregational participants as well as the reading, singing and praying of the written texts. It would be foolish to suggest that worship through liturgy merely is the equivalent of the printed text of the worship services.

In fact, as the literal meaning of the word "liturgy" (Greek, leitourgia) indicates, liturgy is action involving people (ergon, work; litos, belonging to the people) and not first and foremost a discourse (logos). This perhaps explains why theology as a science in the West (and especially as scholastic theology) has only had a minimal interest in the liturgy. In contrast, in the Byzantine tradition, the Divine Liturgy (= Holy Eucharist) has always been regarded as the most nearly perfect expression of

[Page 7]

theology, that is, of discourse concerning the Holy Trinity and man’s salvation. In recent times liturgical experts have begun to say that modern theology should arise from the liturgy (i.e. from the liturgy which they write today and not the inherited classic liturgies!), which is a somewhat different claim to that of the Orthodox Churches.

When the BCP was produced by Archbishop Cranmer the word "liturgy" was not in use. Apparently the Latin adjective liturgicus and the noun liturgia were not used of the divine service in the West until 1588. So what we now call liturgy was called De divinis officiis or De ritibus Ecclesiae or De sacris ritibus in the late Middle Ages. Only since the nineteenth century has liturgia (liturgy) come into general use and is now the official word used by the Roman Catholic Church of the rites and offices of divine worship. Defined by Vatican II in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, liturgia is "an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ." This is because "in the liturgy, by means of signs perceptible to the senses, human sanctification is signified and brought about in ways proper to each of these signs" and "the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members." In other words, under the veil of visible, efficacious signs there is a meeting or encounter between the Holy Trinity who saves and sanctifies the Church and the Church which responds by offering her worship to her God. So the liturgy is a divine and human work – first and foremost a work of God and, secondly, a (dependent) work of man.

In the New Testament the Greek nouns leitourgia and leitourgos (verb, leitourgein) are used of the service of God rendered by the priests and Levites in the Temple (Luke 1:23; Heb.9:21; 10:11), of Chris-

[Page 8]

tian worship (Acts 13:2), of Jesus Christ, the High Priest in heaven, as the minister (leitourgos) of the holy things (Heb.8:2), and of His service as Mediator as a "liturgy" (Heb.8:6). This usage reminds us that no definition of liturgy will suffice which does not include the concept of worship being offered to the Father in, with, and through the exalted Lord Jesus Christ.

The particular liturgical texts which are the focus of this study are those produced in North America – the official prayer book of the Episcopal Church of the USA and the alternative service book of the Anglican Church in Canada. The Episcopal book known as the 1979 Book of Common Prayer replaced the traditional volume, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. Though their titles are identical, the books are as different as chalk is from cheese, for the 1979 book belongs to the new order of books of "Alternative Services." It would have been better had the Episcopal Church called this book by another name for it is not common prayer but rather varied prayer.

The Canadian Anglican Book, correctly named the 1985 Book of Alternative Services (BAS), is not yet the official prayer book of the Church in Canada. It exists alongside the traditional book, The Book of Common Prayer, whose last edition was 1962. The American BCP (1928) and the Canadian BCP (1962) have much in common, as also do the American BCP (1979) and the Canadian BAS (1985). In fact the Canadian BAS owes much to the 1979 BCP.

Perhaps here is the best place to state that I shall call those whose profession is liturgics (from the Greek adjective, leitourgik) by the name of liturgists. I realize that "liturgist" can mean either a student of liturgy or a celebrant of the liturgy but in

[Page 9]

this book I use only the first meaning. So for me a liturgist is a student of the historical development, essential structures, contents, effects and manifestations of the liturgy. It hardly needs to be said that to be good at this he must have a great variety of linguistic skills and much learning in theology and culture.

In a previous book from this publisher, entitled Knowing God through the Liturgy (1992), I sought to show the excellency of the texts of the liturgy contained in the traditional Anglican prayer books as a means of approaching, having fellowship, with and worshipping the Lord our God. I made the point that renewal by the Holy Spirit is necessary for these classic texts to be the sphere wherein God opens the windows of heaven to let us see the throne of grace.

Structure and Doctrine

In this book I seek to show the serious doctrinal deficiencies of the new type of prayer books. I do not claim that it is impossible for orthodox Christian believers to use them, and I do not state that they are completely heretical. What I do claim is that they reflect the malaise of the theology and spirituality of the 1960s and 1970s and so lack doctrinal clarity and integrity despite the fact that they may reasonably claim to be well arranged upon an ancient pattern. Since my interest and concern is theological, and since I have no expertise in the technicalities of liturgy, the substance of the book is primarily doctrinal. Nevertheless, I cannot write about the doctrine within the Rites without commenting on the structure of the Rites. It is, of course, possible to have a bad or poor structure for the texts of worship and yet for the doctrine contained in them

[Page 10]

to be wholly orthodox. Then, also, it is possible for the reverse to be true – good structure and poor doctrine. I have tried to write so that any intelligent person who is interested in the issues raised will be able to follow my comments on both the structure of the services and their doctrinal content. In my argument and presentation, however, it is the doctrine and not the structure on which I particularly focus.

It has been claimed that the leading candidate for the ugliest issue in theology today is certainly heresy. If you or I saw a person coming our way who we suspected might raise the question of heresy with us, we would probably steer clear of him or her. To take doctrine seriously and to wish to distinguish between false and true doctrine, good and bad theology, and imprecise and precise formulations is not much in vogue these days. Regrettably, the words of Paul seem so remote: "Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a Gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). Today there is little sense of orthodoxy and heresy but a general sense of this and that opinion. Modern theology seems to be in the business of new visions, alternative approaches, and creating something different, not of conserving the Faith once delivered to the saints. Yet orthodoxy, that of the apostles and the ecumenical councils, always stands in an intrinsic relation with heresy (hairesis – attachment to some teaching other than the delivered and received tradition of Faith). Orthodoxy exists to clarify the difference and distinction between the apostolic faith and other teaching (hairesis). The Council of Nicea (325) not only declared the Faith in its Creed but it also set forth anathemas to make clear what it rejected. To teach the truth as it is in Jesus Christ requires also that the untruths about Him be declared and rejected.

[Page 11]

Today, to engage in the latter is to ensure one’s unpopularity.

Thomas C. Oden has much that is valuable to say on this topic and he writes:

When a theologian forgets the distinction between heterodoxy and orthodoxy, it is roughly equivalent to a physician forgetting the difference between disease and health, or axe and scalpel, or a lawyer forgetting the difference between criminality and corpus juris. Yet it is just this distinction that theology has over the past two centuries of alleged progress systematically forgotten to make. A long chain of regrettable results has followed for pastoral care, biblical studies, preaching, Christian ethics, and the mission of the church (After Modernity... What?, 1990, p.59).

We encounter this chain daily in the liberal denominations of North America and Europe.

For many, apparently, as long as a form of words evokes good feelings, it is often deemed to be appropriate and useful, even if the literal meaning of the text is deficient. My concern with the text of the liturgies is that of whether or not they contain Christian truth. Are the statements made about God in prayers and praises and in acclamations and antiphons actually true to the witness of Scripture and of the early Church? Do they faithfully convey that teaching which may be called biblical and catholic doctrine? In other words, I take seriously the Latin aphorism Lex orandi: lex credendi; "the law of praying is the law of believing." And, I ask: Is it possible to conclude what is the Faith of the Church from what she says and how she says it when she worships the Lord her God?

I realize that the claim is often made these days that "the law of believing" can only be recognized if

[Page 12]

it is accepted that the texts are integral parts of the action and the mystery which is liturgy: thus the statement, summary and explication of the lex credendi must be based on the interpreting of the whole context. Even if I concede this point, which I am prepared to do, I cannot see how it makes any difference to the meaning of statements which are doctrinal in character – e.g. creeds, prefaces to eucharistic prayers, catechetical answers in the rite of baptism and so on. For example, standing to say the Creed does not change the meaning of the text even if the action of standing enriches or dramatizes that meaning. Likewise the gestures of the priest as he offers the prayers may add appropriate emphasis; but, it does not change the actual meaning of the text.

As we approach the year 2000, the Anglican Communion of Churches seems to be falling apart. Further, there is talk of more revision of existing prayer books in the direction of loose-leaf resource books. I offer my theological critique of the relatively new books as a contribution towards preparing future books which are at once traditional and modern. Modern in that they are for Anglicans of the twenty-first century and traditional in that they continue the biblical witness of the Books of Common Prayer which have been at the very center of the via Anglicana since 1549. As one who wholly supports the Common Prayer Tradition, I am in no way opposed to reforming the traditional liturgy within clearly established principles. What I am against is what happened in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s – the nearly total rejection of the Common Prayer Tradition in favor of what are increasingly being seen as half-digested ideas concerning the structure and content of liturgy.

[Page 13]

For the minority in North America within the Anglican Way who want to preserve its biblical, catholic, and reformed liturgical character, I cannot see any other way than a return to the Common Prayer Tradition. A genuine renewal of this form of liturgy is needed! The church can set the context for such renewal in one of several ways – e.g., to use the latest edition of the Book of Common Prayer (1928 USA; 1962 Canada) sincerely, honestly, and prayerfully; to render the latest edition in modern English and use that form to the glory of God; to use the BCP with additions – as in the American Missal; and carefully to revise and develop the latest BCP within its own ethos and principles (which will take time). I favor the last possibility as the long-term goal.

Of course I accept that preserving, enlarging, and renewing the Common Prayer Tradition will be possible only when there is a renewal of biblical and patristic doctrine in Anglicanism and/or if a division occurs within the Anglican Way, leading perhaps to two rival worldwide Communions. There would then probably be two different forms of and approaches to liturgy: one Orthodox, confessing the LORD as a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity; and the other Revisionist, tending towards either Unitarianism or Pantheism.

I hope for the renewal of the whole Anglican Communion. Yet I see that the way of the new Prayer Books is a slippery way, and it seems to be one which by its very nature has the effect of taking the Church ever further away from the Scriptures, and from evangelical faith and Catholic dogma and practice. Before it is too late and the classical Anglican Way is lost, there needs to be a genuine reform of the liturgy in North America, and this means the

[Page 14]

dismantling of the mindset which produced the 1979 and 1985 books. I offer this book to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as a contribution to the genuine revival of the Common Prayer Tradition in North America. May He be pleased to use it (with all its errors and weaknesses) in His providence to stir up the wills of His faithful people to work for the reform and the renewal of the worship offered unto Him by those whom He has called into the Anglican Way of Christianity.

Next Section Home Here SAW Home