From the 1960s through the 1970s into the 1980s various provinces of the Anglican Communion of Churches were engaged in producing new collections of services to become alternatives to the received text and services of the traditional Book of Common Prayer (first edition 1549, most recent USA edition 1928). The Church of England published in 1980 An Alternative Service Book and a little later the Anglican Church of Canada produced A Book of Alternative Services. The Episcopal Church of the USA got ahead of the Church of England and published its collection in 1979.

A Book of Alternative Services

If, theoretically, we look at the American 1979 Prayer Book approved by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church as a “Book of Alternative Services” (rather than, as on its title-page, THE Book of Common Prayer), and view it in terms of the collections of experimental services being produced in the Anglican family of churches at that time, then we may be able to see it in a generally positive light. For example:

1. The traditional language parts (especially the Rite I Holy Eucharist) can be seen as the provision of a new and experimental structure for the Holy Communion, adapting the Cranmerian order in the direction of that found in the rites preserved by the works of Hippolytus of the third century. Here there is an exchange of the Peace to mark the end of the ministry of the Word and the beginning of the ministry of the Sacrament, and the fraction (the breaking of the Bread) is placed after the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, rather than during it.

2. The new rites for Baptism and Confirmation can be seen as an attempt to put into practice the doctrine that “Christian initiation is complete in baptism,” so that Confirmation is not to be seen as a separate Sacrament.

3. The new translation of the Psalter in “expansive language” can be seen as a first attempt to provide a liturgical Psalter in a language which does not offend feminists and which seeks to include all church members (even of the most tender sensibility) in the daily prayer of the Church.

4. The new rite for the reconciliation of a penitent can be seen as providing a pastoral means of dealing with those who experience the need to make a private confession of sin in the presence of God and His priest.

5. The new structure and content of the Ordinal (listed under “Episcopal Services,” as “the Ordination Rites”) can be seen as providing an alternative to the modified Western (Latin) Ordinal of the BCP 1928, by drawing on material from the early Church, and from the works of Hippolytus in particular, as well as making it possible for women to be ordained (rubrics with “he/she”).

6. And then the provision of additional services for Holy Week, and especially Easter, can be seen as making available for all an ancient set of Rites long forgotten even in the Roman Catholic Church until they were restored after Vatican II.

Had all these rites of the 1979 Book been truly “alternative services,” then in evaluating and judging them, one could have looked for their positive contribution and read them not as replacements for what is in the BCP, but as true options for use some of the time. These options could have been explored with pastoral discretion, and with a view towards their possible improvement after an experimental period.

There is no doubt but that there are some positive gains, insights and pluses for the Anglican family in the provisions of the 1979 Book and in similar “Books of Alternative Services” around the Anglican Communion of Churches. Of these, provision of services for Holy Week is probably the most significant.

Named “The Book of Common Prayer” but not so

However, since the 1979 American Book was deliberately called “The Book of Common Prayer” by the General Convention and was definitely intended by that body to replace the previous Book (the BCP 1928) of that name, we must evaluate the new book as standing alone, as a law unto itself, the new Formulary of the Episcopal Church of the USA. In one sweep all the received Formularies were set aside and made to be merely historical documents.

When we look at the 1979 Book critically, that is as Anglicans within a long tradition of worship, doctrine, and discipline based upon the Scriptures and guided by the Creeds and the historic Formularies, then we see that although this new book claims to stand alone as THE Prayer Book, it cannot possibly function as an orthodox formulary for modern Episcopalians & Anglicans and that for the following reasons:

(1) There is no common doctrine or common godly order in it. Rather it contains a variety of doctrines and forms of religious life and discipline. Certainly there is a common structure to the different Rites for the Holy Eucharist, but a common structure is not the same thing as a common doctrine and form of godliness. The appearance is that of variety and beneath the variety there is relativism. There is an incompatibility of teaching in the varied rites.

(2) There is no common doctrine because of:

Differing translations of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds in Rite I and Rite II texts, generating different and opposing doctrines. For example, in the modern translation of both the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds doubt is cast on the virginal conception of the Lord Jesus by adding to the original text the expression “by the power of.” The originals in Greek and Latin contain no words that can possibly translated “by the power of” for they state that the conception is “by the Holy Spirit,” that is, by the unique, supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit in the laws and processes of nature. In contrast all procreation is “by the power of the Holy Spirit” for He is the Energizer of the laws and processes of nature.

Differing and varied teaching concerning Jesus Christ in terms of His identity and His saving work. For example: in the Rite I text for the Holy Eucharist are proclaimed the classic Anglican doctrines of the identity of Jesus Christ as One Person made known in two natures, divine and human, and of His sacrificial Atonement as the Mediator for the sins of the world. In the Rite II texts, and as their content is summarized in “An Outline of the Faith,” doctrines are proclaimed which (in the language of the Early Church) can be described as adoptianism (Jesus was adopted as Son of God at his birth or baptism) or Nestorianism (Jesus is two persons, one divine and one human, joined together for the purposes of human salvation).

Differing and varied teaching of what is means to confess that God is a Trinity in Unity is found both in the Rite I and in the Rite II texts. On the one hand there is the traditional, patristic teaching that God is the Holy Trinity, three Persons who each possess in its entirety the Godhead, so that each is of the same, identical substance, essence, and being as the other two. Thus there is a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity. On the other hand, there is the old and heretical teaching called Modalism, where “God as Trinity” is seen as meaning that God is One Person, who reveals Himself in three modes of being, as the Father, as the Son, and as the Holy Spirit. Such teaching lies behind the novel acclamation at the beginning of services in both Rite I and Rite II — “Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The original text in the Greek reads, “Blessed be the kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit….”

Differing and varied teaching in the Rite I and Rite II texts concerning mankind and God’s salvation. Even though the description of the nature and character of human sinfulness and sin in the Rite I texts is less precise than that of the texts of the classic BCP, it is nevertheless very different from that found in the Rite II texts and in “An Outline of the Faith.” Original sin or birth sin has virtually disappeared from this second group of texts. Actual sin is made out to be much less of a serious problem and issue before God in his holiness and righteousness than it has been in classical Christian teaching. Indeed, one of the frequent complaints of those who wanted to change the received tradition of the Common Prayer was that it is too penitential and emphasizes too much the sinful estate of man.

(3) There is imposition of novel ideas which belong particularly to the culture of the 1960s:

For example, placed within the Baptismal Rite is the notion of a contract between the baptized and God, making part of that contract a commitment to “peace and justice.” These are frequently interpreted, not as the “peace and justice” of the Holy Scriptures, but in terms of the values of 1960s social activism. In this context, the phrase “the baptismal covenant” as it appears in the Rite for Baptism in the 1979 Book, with its theme of the supposed covenant (understood as a “contract”) between “humankind” and God, has become a central doctrinal feature of the “new episcopalianism.” On the basis of it, the General Convention and the “National Church” have imposed a modern liberationist agenda of “civil” and social “rights” on the Episcopal Church, espousing a variety of left-wing political, economic, and social causes. For example, the “right” of homosexual persons to “peace and justice” is often given as a justification for their “marriage” in the Church. Meanwhile, those Episcopalians who do not believe that we negotiate a covenant with God, but who rather believe that God calls us into His covenant which He has already made for us in Christ Jesus, find great difficulty in using this Rite and espousing the theology and practice deduced from it.

Also, the use of “inclusive language” in the translation of the Psalter so as to make women of a particular political outlook feel at home in using it. Thus the “man-centered” nature of the psalms is toned down and modified. However, when the word “man” is changed to “they” (as in Psalm 1), the traditional use of the Psalter as the prayer of the Church in and with Christ, united to him as the Head of the Body, and as the prayer of Jesus Christ within His Body, becomes impossible for, according to the Fathers, the “man” in Psalm 1 (as elsewhere) is the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. To pray the Psalms as the Church has prayed them over the centuries, the text must read, “Blessed is the Man…” not “Happy are they….” The inspired text, as God has given it to be written down, is already inclusive of every faithful human being, man or woman.

Further, the writing of the ordination services in such a way as to give them a unisex character and to demonstrate that “civil rights” for women have been achieved in the Episcopal Church. In order to make certain that ordination to all three ministries (deacon, presbyter, and bishop) was open to women, the use of “she” was introduced as an alternative to “he” by the method of setting all masculine pronouns in italic type (for example, he or him, is to be understood as also permitting she or her). Thus by one simple grammatical change (really a change in typography) the settled doctrine of the catholic Church was set aside — that only such men as were called by the Holy Spirit and by the Church could be ordained to the ministerial priesthood.

In conclusion

There is the definite tendency to lose the centripetal and unifying power of the historic Common Prayer and to establish and confirm the centrifugal and disjointed forces of variety and relativism (so common in modern culture). The result is, by intention, less unity in doctrine and practice in the Church. This result is empirically verifiable simply by visiting new parishes, where one has no idea (and can have no idea) in advance about what to expect in terms of the order or the content of services.

In concluding, it needs to be explained and emphasised that if the 1979 Book is to be authorized for use in a new province of the Anglican Communion in America in the third millennium, then it will have to be re-named to indicate that it is a “Book of Alternative Services.” Furthermore, it will have to be placed in a subordinate position to the historic Formularies of the Episcopal Church. It will then be seen as existing alongside the growing number of books of alternative services in the Anglican Communion, and thus understood and used in such a way as to be interpreted in harmony with the received historic Formularies.