A discussion starter

Loud and many have been the protests against the consecration as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, USA, of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man living with his male partner. And he and his friends have proudly defended his lifestyle and his elevation.

A variety of reasons have been given as to why the Diocese of New Hampshire and the General Convention of the ECUSA took this step in 2003 to elect and confirm this man as bishop, when the greater part of the Anglican family of Churches around the world made it clear that they vehemently opposed such a step. Here are some of the reasons given by opponents for this action of the ECUSA, which, we must remember, occurred constitutionally by a majority vote in both the diocesan and national conventions.

1. The ECUSA took upon itself in the revolutionary 1960s, and developed this in later years, the role of the Enlightened Church with a traditionally-shaped Liturgy. Its bishops preached an enlightened religion and morality in tune with the latest trends within liberal culture. Therefore the Episcopal office was seen as the promoter of "prophetic causes" and the baptismal covenant of the new liturgy was seen as the commitment of the people to these same causes.

2. The ECUSA set aside the traditional view of the authority of Holy Scripture for faith and conduct. Therefore, it does not, perhaps cannot, hear and heed the clear condemnation of homosexual acts found in the OT and NT.

3. The ECUSA allowed -- even welcomed -- contemporary experience, especially progressive movements in society, to guide both its interpretation of the Bible and its view of the moral life. Therefore, it is in practice guided by the principles and ethics of modern liberationist movements, which assert the rights of persons to self-worth & self-fulfilment according to their nature and orientation.

4. The ECUSA has a doctrine of God which declares that He/She is LOVE and that this LOVE requires justice for all in the sense of inclusion of all, whoever and whatever they are. Therefore, LOVE requires full space and place for those whose orientation is homosexual, just as it does for those who are heterosexual or even bi-sexual. The God of love is the affirmer of individual and personal preferences.

I think that all of these explanations are correct as far as they go in terms of explaining the changing character of the Episcopal Church, from being the "bridge Church" between Catholicism and Protestantism up to the 1960s and then turning into the "enlightened Church attuned to liberal culture" of the 1970s. However, I do recognize that it is a complex story with a variety of dimensions and causes from social to theological.

In this complex story of causation, I want to argue that the rejection of the classic Book of Common Prayer (1662 - 1928) as its Formulary and its replacement by the 1979 Prayer Book (which bore the name of the historic Book while rejecting much of its doctrine and piety) has played a major role in the preparation within the ECUSA for the possibility of the consecration of a "gay" man. The basic reason for this claim is found in the often-repeated statement by ECUSA liturgists and bishops that "the law of praying is the law of believing." That is, that which is in the public Liturgy and is heard often becomes very readily the belief system, the assumptions or the mindset of the users of that Liturgy. And this of course is compounded if the sermons, teaching and ethos surrounding liturgy is of the same nature as the essential content of the Liturgy. So my argument is that the use of the 1979 Liturgy, and especially the "contemporary language" rites and texts therein, prepared the way for receiving all kinds of innovations by conditioning the members of the ECUSA to see those innovations as compatible with the faith they prayed, and thus to be acceptable even if odd or strange.

The place to go and look for a summary of the basic and innovative doctrines and ideas within the 1979 Prayer Book is its Catechism or "Outline of the Faith." This was produced by a small committee, which was charged with putting into question and answer form the basic teaching that they found explicitly or implicitly only in the Rite Two services of the new Prayer Book (which were approved on first reading in 1976 and then on second reading in 1979). Since the House of Bishops was aware that there was a real difference between the doctrines in the traditional language Rite One texts and the modern ones known as Rite Two, they asked for a Catechism based only upon the law of worship of the latter. This ensured an "enlightened" Catechism.

Within the very first section of this Catechism, the careful reader discovers the dominant doctrine concerning human beings which was fundamental to the public religion and morality of the Episcopal Church from the 1970s through to 2004. It is the novel doctrine that being made in the image of God (a traditional Hebrew and Christian expression based upon Genesis 1: 27) is all about human beings as creatures having freedom and exercising choices. Within the cultural context of the 1970s this way of expressing what it is to be in the image of God was obviously understood by many in terms of the view of human moral agency and freedom that was widespread at that time -- the view found not only in popular songs but also in the ideology of the liberationist movements of the time and the philosophy of left-of-centre political parties, not to mention of many academics and media personalities.

For a description in depth and detail of the dominant ways in which the "enlightened culture" of the 1960s and 1970s saw the nature of human beings and their place in society, one can turn to such authors as Alasdair MacIntyre and his book, Whose Justice, Whose Rationality. However, what is found in detail in such writers is summarised with great clarity by Philip Turner in connection with the Episcopal Church in an essay published in 2003 ("The Episcopalian Preference", First Things, November 2003, pp.28ff.). Dr Turner clearly shows that:

1. The Episcopal Church from the 1960s presented itself as an enlightened alternative to the moral and theological rigidities of Rome and the enthusiasm of evangelical Protestantism. It embraced an enlightened religion tuned into the latest trends within secular, liberal culture. So, it is not surprising that the notorious & heretical Bishop James Pike of California, who publicly denied basic Trinitarian Theism was neither prosecuted nor disciplined in the late 1960s by the House of Bishops or by the General Convention of the Church.

2. The office of Bishop began to be used from around 1970 as a prophetic lever or instrument to shake people free from the supposed incrusted and outdated doctrines and positions of the past. The illegal ordination of women in 1974 and then the illegal ordination of "gay" women and men from 1977 onwards were examples of actions by bishops claiming to act prophetically to relieve the oppressed and downtrodden. In fact, the ordination of women and then of sexually-active homosexual persons became a "justice" issue to be taken up and furthered by a "prophetic" episcopate.

3. The Episcopal Church absorbed and worked from a new kind of innovative, western morality where each human being is seen as an individual, who is wholly unique, as a self that has a particular history and needs, and as a person who has particular rights that allow him/her to express his/her individuality and to pursue well being. And for human being as moral agents who see themselves as individuals, selves and persons, sexuality becomes both a marker of identity and a primary way of expressing the preferences that define identity. Therefore, what is called "sexual orientation" and its expression are seen as very important in the new moral order.

4. The sirens of modernity sound so sweet to the Episcopal Church because it has lost a full sense of the transcendence God and has majored on the immanence of God, so that its theology leans either towards pantheism (the mind or essence of the world is God) or possibly to panentheism (the world is included within the being of God). Thus the standard type of sermon is as follows: "God is love; God's love is inclusive; God acts in justice to ensure that everyone (all types) are included; we should work with God as co-actors and co-creators in this great drama in making the world what She/He desires it to be."

5. The God of the Episcopal Church is the Image of the ideal society that the new moral order points to - the inclusion of preference. God is the all inclusive one. She/He is loving inclusion, the affirming of preferences, and that is all. Gone are the old themes of the divine hatred of sin and the loving of holiness and righteousness! The God of this Church is on this estimate simply an idol, the projection of the new moral and social order, worshipped by the adoring members.

Now in this context, it is not difficult to see that the freedom which is seen as essential to being human by the Catechism is basically that described above. It has no reference to established norms and order in the tradition of the Church, but is generated from within each human being. Truth is in being true to oneself as one knows oneself through one's feelings and expresses oneself through ones orientation and actions (which, of course, in the estimate of the old doctrines, is wholly to misunderstand one's real self and one's standing before the holy God).

Now let us consider the doctrine of moral agency and freedom in the Prayer Book of 1976/1979.

It is, I think, relatively easy to see the relation of the enlightened view of moral agency and human freedom to such innovations as the blessing of second and third marriages of divorcees in church, the ordaining of women to the Ministry, the ordaining of "gay" persons and the blessing of "gay" partnerships, the support of a woman's right in terms of abortion, the right to choose how to address God in prayer and not to be bound by biblical categories, and so on. It is perhaps more difficult at first sight to discern the influence upon the Prayer Book. However, it is there for eyes to see not only in the definitions of human nature and sin in the Catechism but also in the understanding of Covenant both in the Catechism and in "the Baptismal Covenant." In the latter a free individual takes on the duty of pursuing peace and justice in the world. It is there also in the translation of certain Canticles and of the Psalter (see e.g., the Song of Simeon in Rite Two). Further, it is there in the multiple choice offered within the Liturgy for, on the modern view, individuals, selves and free persons need choice to be who they are. To be restricted to one liturgy and one only, as in the historic editions of The Book of Common Prayer, would be to exist in chains and to be tied to the old order of things.

Not often noted, for it is perhaps too obvious, is that this novel commitment to freedom of choice is demonstrated in the very title of the 1979 Prayer Book. The Liturgical Commission followed by the House of Bishops and then the whole General Convention felt that they were free of all reference to and duty towards established order and to traditional views of truth and honesty. They believed that they had a modern duty to be what they were and to do what they had to do in order to be true to themselves. Their God of truth wanted them to be true to their inner feelings and to the cause they espoused. Therefore, without so much as an explanation, excuse or argument they decided that they would call their book of multiples services, "The Book of Common Prayer," even though they well knew that in other provinces of the Anglican Family much the same book was being called "An Alternative Service Book" or "A Book of Alternative Services" and the ancient title was reserved - as it had been since 1549 -- for that form of Prayer Book which truly contains common (one rite for all) in contrast to varied and optional public prayer (multiple choice).

Therefore the constant use of the pirated name of the 1979 Prayer Book and its commitment to the innovative, enlightened view of moral agency and human freedom made a major contribution week by week and year by year to setting the context wherein the Episcopal Church, which created the 1979 Book, went on to consecrate Gene Robinson. Of this man, Dr Turner writes: "Here is a unique individual, who is a self with a particular history, and a person who has a right to express his preferences and put his talents to work in the world he inhabits. To deny him that right on the basis of sexual preference is to deny him his personal identity." Of course, the ECUSA did not deny that right and Robinson is very comfortable with the 1979 Book.

Regrettably and tragically, most of the opponents of this consecration of Gene Robinson within the ECUSA treat this 1979 Book as not only the acceptable Formulary of their Church but also as the source of their weekly liturgies. In doing this, they help - perhaps unwittingly - the ECUSA prepare for more innovations, as they also bind themselves into the enlightened, liberal view of human moral agency and freedom associated with this book - again perhaps, without wholly realising this!

[Have you read the booklets by Dr Toon available from the Prayer Book Society - 1-800-727-1928 & www.anglicanmarketplace.com : Annotated Holy Communion, the 1928 BCP text with explanations, 48 pages & An Act of Piracy, The Episcopal Liturgy of 1979, 32 pages?]