Piracy by Liturgists

PIRACY

We have witnessed over the last twenty-five years in the Anglican Communion, from the West Indies through the United States of America to England, the use of piracy by liturgists and bishops. Not that the latter are sea-robbers but that they are pirates in this sense of the word: "One who appropriates or reproduces without leave, for his own benefit, a composition, idea or invention that he has no right to; especially one who infringes on the copyright of another" (Oxford English Dictionary).

First of all, the Episcopal Church of the USA pirated the expression "Common Prayer" and used it for a form of public prayer which was not its original meaning and purpose. That is, it called by the traditional Title that which was in shape and content, in structure and ingredients, a prayer book in which were multiple alternatives - and thus choice of service/rite at the local level from the available provision. So there is not one Eucharistic Prayer but many. Since 1979 when it called a book of alternative services by the title of "The Book of Common Prayer", as if this new book were in the direct lineage of the English Prayer Book of 1662 and the first American of 1789, this Church has sought to make respectable its piracy. But having become a pirate and living in lawlessness this Church has continued to defy natural and divine law in various ways and is universally known for its innovations ("sin") and its rejection of "the old paths and ways". Regrettably a good proportion of its membership rejoices in its piracy, lawlessness and innovations in worship, doctrine and discipline. The new Prayer Book (on which work has begun) to replace that of 1979 will be a multi-volume and several CD's affair, and it will make ever clearer to the world, if the world be still interested, how far the Episcopal Church has departed from the Anglican Way and how defiant a pirate it is.

In the second place, the Church of the Province of the West Indies imitated the Episcopal Church ( a near neighbour) and also proceeded to use the title of "The Book of Common Prayer" for its new book of alternative services from 1996. The effects of this piracy will become clearer as the years pass by.

What both the ECUSA and West Indian Province could have done was to keep "The Book of Common Prayer" (USA, 1928, WI 1662) as received intact, and to place alongside it a "Book of Alternative Services", called by that or a similar name, as happened in other places (e.g., Canada in 1985).

The Church of England, Mother Church of the Anglican Communion, seems to have done what I have indicated the Churches on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean ought to have done. In 1980 she called her new prayer book "The Alternative Service Book, 1980. Services authorized for use in the Church of England in conjunction with The Book of Common Prayer". "The Book of Common Prayer" (1662) remained as the primary Prayer Book and also the doctrinal Formulary of the Church of England and so some parishes used only the 1662 Book, others used only the 1980 Book and yet others used both from 1980 until 2000. At the beginning of the new millennium, the Church of England ordered that the 1980 Book be recycled (the pew edition was 1290
pages!) and that parishes acquire the replacement, or at least the first volume of the multi-volume replacement, given the general title of "Common Worship."

Now the legal status of "Common Worship" is the same as that of the 1980 Book but on the title pages of the various volumes the words, "Services authorized for use in the Church of England in conjunction with the Book of Common Prayer" are not to be found. However, if one looks inside the volumes one can find this recognition although it is not anything like as prominent as it was in 1980. Inside the first volume of Common Worship, which has provision for Sundays services, there are many options provided and amongst these are services (only slightly revised) from the Prayer Book of 1662 both in its own idiom and in a modern, contemporary idiom. Obviously the aim of this enterprise is to provide one source (howbeit multi-volume) for the Church of England and to leave the "Book of Common Prayer" on the shelf or in the cupboard to be referred to as and when required. This is an enterprise one of whose aims is to incorporate the major services of the classical Prayer Book into the general mix and match of the new order. The General Synod is not seeking to get rid of "The Book of Common Prayer" (of which it is proud as a historical relic) but merely, for practical purposes, making it a part of the general provision of ingredients from which a parish can choose.

In pursuing this aim, the liturgists and bishops have become pirates, as are their colleagues across the Atlantic. They have taken the word "common" (which has been inextricably connected in English tradition for four centuries with a specific Book and the specific texts in that Book) and, with deliberate and careful calculation, they have used this adjective to accompany the word "worship" and multiple choice. How they did this is, looking back, is easy to plot. First of all, they wrote and spoke of common structures/shapes to services and also of common contents/ingredients for services and then began to tear the word "common" away from a specific book with specific texts within in it, in order to refer more vaguely to anything used with the permission of the Church. That is, they convinced themselves and taught others that commonality lay in a whole Church using only those approved shapes or structures of services authorized by its Synod. So "common prayer" is not seen (as it had been) as the whole Church using (with varied ceremony) the same basic texts for Daily Prayer, Holy Communion, Baptism, Confirmation, Burial of the Dead and so on, but the whole Church using the same basic structure for services while each parish chooses what ingredients to place within the basic structure from the growing provision of alternatives available in the supermarket which are the growing volumes of Common Worship and explanatory books, booklets and essays. Thus common worship unlike common prayer means that two parishes a mile apart have services which have nothing in common except (behind or underneath the details and not necessarily obvious) a common structure or shape.

The title "Common Worship" is so near to "Common Prayer" that the word piracy is applicable as much to the liturgists and bishops of the Mother Church as it is to the Churches of the former colonies of England/Great Britain. Regrettably there is no evidence that the pirates on either side of the Atlantic regret their action or intend to restore the stolen property. Their strategy seems to be not to talk about it but to divert attention elsewhere. Churches cannot prosper if they are built upon lies for which there is no repentance.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon