Why do Episcopalians find it difficult to recognize that the so-called 1979 B.C.P. is not truly an authentic B.C.P. like the English 1662, the American 1789/1892/1928 and the Canadian 1962 but is truly a Book of Alternative Services?

A draft statement for discussion. Peter Toon

 

  1. Since 1979, the whole machinery of the Episcopal Church, at the national, diocesan and parish levels has called the new Prayer Book produced by the Standing Liturgical Commission and approved at the General Conventions of 1976 and 1979 by the name and title, THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. Thus people have got into the habit of calling it by that name, the title that is printed on the cover and on the title page of the book itself. It seems foolish even to question that this Book is "The Book of Common Prayer" when seemingly every bishop and every priest calls it by this name.
  2. Practically speaking this 1979 Prayer Book is apparently used in most (conservative) parishes as was the 1928 B.C.P. before the 1970’s. People sit in their pews, pick it up when advised and turn to this or that page, follow the service there, and then move on to another page. At the end of the service they leave it in the pews and continue with their lives. (Few seem to use it for daily worship in their homes.)
  3. This 1979 Prayer Book seems to be just another Anglican Prayer Book. For in it are services for all the traditional things – daily prayer, the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, matrimony, burials and so on. It contains provision for everything that the 1928 B.C.P. provided for.
  4. People have gotten used to variety in the culture and in their lives; further they recognize that the use of the English language is rapidly changing. Thus the fact that there is traditional and modern English used and that there are multiple services and multiple options within services does not seem to bother them. That is, they do not seem to think that a book which deliberately exists to provide choice in the content of services (especially the Holy Eucharist) cannot by definition be called The Book of COMMON Prayer, for that which is "common" is no longer present.
  5. Modern Episcopalians know little of their history. The massive cultural revolution of the 1960’s had a great impact on the Episcopal Church and caused the departure of many members who were custodians of the received tradition of the Common Prayer. Thus there is little active MEMORY in this Church of its own history and traditions. Further, new people have joined who know nothing of the received tradition of the Anglican/Episcopal Way. So for them there is no problem in simply saying what others before and around them say and of increasing the lack of MEMORY!
  6. The Roman Catholic Church introduced a variety of Rites for the Mass after the Second Vatican Council, whereas before there was only One Rite. This has helped to give the impression to some Episcopalians that Common Prayer can have variety of rites within it and remain as the Common Prayer.
  7. Great emphasis has been placed in liturgical studies in seminaries and in teaching in parishes on the need to recover ancient church structures for the services of the Church. This heavy propaganda has led to the justification for variety in service books and in weekly worship.
    8.

    One of the things that the liturgiologists gloss over when the claim that a variety of rites was the "norm" in the ancient Church (defined in whatever way is convenient for them) is that by and large each locality or nation had a single rite in use in that place (in some sort of conformity to The Common Prayer of the whole Church).

    To say that the church in Egypt and the church in Gaul had different rites (and therefore one national church can have different rites) misunderstands or ignores the evidence that the church in Egypt had one rite and the church in Gaul (or some subset of Gaul) had one rite. The error can be compared to saying that they had one liturgical language in Egypt and one liturgical language in Gaul, so everywhere had at least two languages in use in the rites of each place. It is an apples and oranges mistake.

  8. After twenty years and the production of thousands of these prayer books and millions of pages of minutes and records which refer to the 1979 prayer book as "The Book of Common Prayer," few people are willing even to consider the possibility that the 1979 book is not really and truly a Book of Common Prayer but is rather something else well known in the Anglican Family, a "Book of Alternative Services," or "An Alternative Service Book."
  9. Not a few Anglo-Catholics have been more than ready to call the 1979 book by the title of "The Book of Common Prayer" because they believe it gave them some of those things (e.g. the Gloria at the beginning of the Mass and a Rite for personal confession of sin) for which they had been pressing. Likewise not a few Evangelicals have been more than ready also to do so because they got services in modern English and saw these as more useful for outreach and evangelism.
  10. Previously this title, The Book of Common Prayer, was used only in the Anglican world for such Prayer Books which were revisions of the English 1662 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (which was itself a revision of the 1549/1552 B.C.P.). By revision here is meant minor changes in structure and content and adapting to new countries with their own special holidays and anniversaries. Revision does not include removing that which characterizes the Book as "of Common Prayer." That is, for it to remain The Common Prayer there must be is one and one only Rite for each occasion, sacrament and office and there must be a uniform doctrine throughout the whole Book. (The 1979 book has variety and relativity in rites and in doctrines and the ONLY reason it is called The B.C.P. is because the General Convention has so ruled!)

Is it important to limit liturgical and doctrinal options? Yes it is right to have limits for when there are no limits the Anglican Way becomes as it were the generic way of modern American Protestantism. The standards are set by the Formularies (classic B.C.P., Ordinal & Articles of Religion) and all new liturgy must be within the doctrinal possibilities set by them. Now some in the ECUSA view themselves as orthodox, Biblical Christians. They also believe that their priests can and should cobble together liturgies from the 1979 book and elsewhere, services with which they and their congregations are as comfortable as those using the classic liturgies of the historic B.C.P. Further, in the name of inclusiveness and diversity, a wider variety of options and doctrines in the parish up the road does not seem to bother them. That is, they do not understand or value the notion that the catholicity of the Anglican Way is related to the commitment to certain forms to mould her life, worship and doctrine.

It would seem that the ECUSA has become no more than just another Protestant denomination much along the lines of modern Methodism or Lutheranism. She ignores the Catholicity of the Anglican Way. There is NO vital connection to the Anglican heritage nor is there ANY real commitment in parishes or seminaries to teach it. To be Anglican (with a substantial meaning from the Tradition) simply is not important anymore for most of the leadership and people of the ECUSA. What is important, we are told, is our "connectedness" to this culture and this time. All else, save those parts of early church and early anglican liturgies that can be made to fit well with modern "connectedness," is secondary or dispensable.

The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon, July 2nd, 1999. Fax 972 245 6167; ptoon@ont.com