There is the strong possibility that the Prayer Book Society of the USA will be charged with inconsistency by friend and foe. This is because of what appears to be a changing stance that the Society and its writers are taking within the present crisis of the Episcopal Church of the USA. However, as we shall see, there is really no inconsistency merely the perception of it by those who do not look closely or deeply.
First of all, there is the charge: “You folks have been asking for the texts of the 1928 BCP to be permitted by bishops for use in parishes as alternative services to those from the 1979 Prayer Book. Now you are asking that the 1928 BCP become the chief formulary of the emerging new federation & era of American Episcopalianism. You are inconsistent and unclear of mind.”
The answer is simple. The present Province of ECUSA authorized the 1979 Prayer Book as its sole and only Prayer Book in 1976/79. This is its primary Formulary. The use of any other rites and services than those within the 1979 Prayer Book is only possible with the permission of the General Convention and/or the Ordinary (diocesan bishop). On two occasions the General Convention has passed resolutions allowing limited use of the rites and services of the 1928 BCP and a few bishops have put that provision into practice.
If there is going to be a new federation of dioceses that sees itself as separate from the “National Church” of the ECUSA, then it has the opportunity to begin on a proper and rightful foundation. The door is open for it to restore the historic Formularies (BCP 1928, Ordinal & Articles of Religion) to their accustomed place, that which they had in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA, and that which they have in the Church of England.
In the second place there is the charge: “For a long time you have been criticising the 1979 Prayer Book as being less than adequate in terms of doctrine, language and structure. Now you are proposing that it be accepted (as least temporarily) as The Book of Alternative Services for the emerging new federation & era of Episcopalianism. You are inconsistent and confused of mind.”
Again the answer is simple. If the 1979 Book were used under the authority of the classic Formularies, it would have to be interpreted in the light of the doctrine in them. Thus where the doctrine in the 1979 Book, when read and understood in and of itself, is or seems to be fuzzy or tending to error, it will admit of an orthodox reading if it is seen in the bright light of the reformed catholic doctrine in the Formularies.
For example, often in the 1979 Book there are these words: “Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Now without context these mean, because of the colon, “Blessed be the One God with Three Names.” And this is a form of Unitarianism and is not obviously Trinitarianism. But when read in the context of the Formularies the words come to mean, “Blessed be God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This is a clear orthodox statement because the natural force of the colon is discounted and the context of classic Trinitarianism provides the rule.
So, while the Prayer Book Society has been right, for the sake of Truth and the heritage of the Anglican Way, to show the inadequacies of the 1979 Book as the Formulary of ECUSA and to ask for permission to use the classic 1928 BCP, it is also right now to call for the reinstatement of the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way and to suggest allowing the 1979 Book under the authority of these foundational texts
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment