AUTONOMY, AUTONOMY & MORE AUTONOMY

A Discussion Starter for earnest souls at this time of Crisis for the ECUSA

What I wish to argue here is that those conservatives within the ECUSA who hold that the 1979 Prayer Book is truly the 1979 American edition of that classic Anglican text known as THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (even as the editions of 1662, 1789, 1891 & 1928 were such) have conceded much more than they imagine. In holding this position (however common it be in evangelical and anglo-catholic circles) they have already in principle conceded the right of the ECUSA in its autonomy to authorize other uses and practices, even when they are contrary to the mind of the Anglican Communion of Churches and to the clear teaching of Scripture and tradition.

Let us begin by agreeing that it is because the Province (now one of 38) known as the Episcopal Church of the USA [ECUSA] is for all practical purposes (as are the other 37 Provinces) autonomous, and subject to no authority outside itself, that it was able, for example, in 1976 to authorize the ordination of women and in 2003 to approve "gay unions" as acceptable. In each case had the Province waited for full discussion and debate in the Communion of Churches and then only acted if and only if there were a consensus in the Communion, or even a majority of Provinces in favor, then neither action would have been taken at that time by the ECUSA.

Yet because the ECUSA was very conscious of being autonomous and proudly so, and because (following the revolutionary 1960s) to innovate in Church doctrine and practice in order to conform to the world was the thing to do, the ECUSA used its autonomy in a fully democratic and internally legal way to approve what were clearly and unmistakably major innovations.

Let us be clear. In 1976 & 1979 the General Convention had before it the choice of authorizing the new collection of services (most of which had been on trial use for some years) prepared by the Standing Liturgical Commission as either (a) being a total replacement for the inherited Book of Common Prayer (1789, 1891 & 1928 editions) or (b) as existing alongside the classic Book of Common Prayer (1928) and thus being called "The Alternative Service Book" [ASB] or "The Book of Alternative Services" [BAS] or something similar.

To choose the latter path would have been to innovate but to do so with the general moral permission of the Lambeth Conference which had given the go-ahead in 1968 to Provinces to prepare alternative forms of services to exist alongside the BCP, which in every Province was the Chief Formulary after the Bible and Creeds. In its published resolutions from 1958 & 1968 & 1978 the Lambeth Conference never envisaged that these Alternative Forms would become total replacements for The Book of Common Prayer. They were to exist alongside and under the doctrinal authority of the classic BCP (which fact is stated clearly on the title page of the Church of England ASB of 1980.)

The ECUSA used its autonomy not merely to innovate in the manner suggested by the Lambeth Conference (by preparing alternative services) but in a way totally contrary to the mind of that Conference. This Province decided to call its new Prayer Book by the hallowed title, THE Book of Common Prayer (1979), and presented it to the Church and the world as if it were really and truly the same classic & historic Book as those of 1928, 1892, 1789 & 1662, and in true succession to them. At the same time, it placed the authentic Prayer Book (1928 edition) in storage as merely a historical document and forbad its general use.

Of course, the leadership of ECUSA offered all kinds of justification for this treacherous act of piracy and most Episcopalians, liberalized by the impact of the revolutionary1960s and by the powerful divorce culture that had penetrated the churches, followed in the path of the liturgists, bishops and the General Convention. Those few who protested were silenced wherever possible. In contrast to the ECUSA, in other Provinces the new services that had been prepared locally were specifically called "alternative services" and authorized to be used alongside those of the classic Prayer Book (e.g. in England that of 1662).

What the ECUSA in fact did was to set aside the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way (classic BCP with the Ordinal & the Articles) and to put in their place a single one -- The book of services with catechism authorized in 1976/79 and falsely called THE BCP.

If we accept this state of affairs and do not protest against it (worse still if we make the 1979 Book part of our Platform of Faith - as does the AAC for example) then we have conceded to the ECUSA the right in its autonomy to act in such a way as to place itself outside the normal parameters of the Anglican Communion. We have no leg to stand on when it comes to other acts of autonomous legislation!

The Archbishop of Canterbury failed the ECUSA and the Communion by not removing the ECUSA bishops from membership of the Lambeth Conference in 1988, and not allowing them back until they had rectified their act of piracy. The present crisis over "gay unions" is really minimal in comparison with the crisis over the Formularies for the crisis over sexuality is in many ways merely the result of the autonomy not being dealt with earlier, especially after 1979.

Therefore, those conservatives within the ECUSA who call for discipline to be meted out to the ECUSA from the See of Canterbury in 2003 do not act consistently and in truth if at the same time they hold that the 1979 Prayer Book is truly THE Book of Common Prayer, rather than a pretender to that high and dignified name.

The safe position for conservatives is to accept that the Formularies of the true Episcopal Church of the USA are the 1928 BCP into which book are also bound the Ordinal and the Articles. Then the 1979 Prayer Book can assume its proper place if required, that of The Alternative Service Book of 1979, in use till a better collection can be produced.


The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)