A contemporary language Rite: Explaining myself to enquirers and critics

In your charity and kindness, please read…

In various tracts/essays/articles over the internet and during the last ten days or so (i.e. in mid September, 2005), I have proposed and suggested that one basic way of uniting “orthodox” Episcopalians/Anglicans in North America is to make available a contemporary language form of the classic Book of Common Prayer (in the edition of 1662, USA 1928 or Canadian 1960 – or one text that takes account of their minor differences). This then could be used by those who prefer to address God as “You” alongside those using the original texts and addressing God as “Thou”. Hereby there would be unity in Rite and Doctrine and also a means created of uniting over a decade or so the various divided parts and streams of the Anglican Way that are in play right now.

To some this proposal seems very odd coming from one who has not only campaigned for the use by congregations of the classic editions of the historic BCP in their original form of English, but who also has defended vigorously this form of English as the genuine English language of prayer – see further, Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete: the English Language of Common Prayer by Lou Tarsitano & Peter Toon (available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com ).

I make this proposal in the context of it becoming clearer week by week that the doctrinal unity of the Anglican Family and Communion and Way is going to be in the future what it has been in the past (and forgotten from 1960s to 2005 by many), and that is commitment to the classic Formularies – the BCP1662 (or equivalent), the Ordinal and the Articles of Religion. The large Anglican Churches of Nigeria and Uganda are making this clear to us.

Please allow me to explain what seems to some to be confusion of mind on my part. I hope you see that I am consistent in what I have proposed.

1. As far as one can tell, there is always going to be a minority in the Anglican Way who desire to worship the Lord in the traditional language of English Public Prayer. These will therefore want to use the King James Version of the Bible and a classic edition of The Book of Common Prayer. They will normally avoid modern rites be they in the 1979 USA prayer book or the 1985 Canadian prayer book. They will also avoid Rite 1 in the 1979 USA prayer book for they know it is not in real terms a genuine equivalent to the original text in the 1928 BCP.
2. As far as one can tell, there is always going to be a majority in the Anglican Way who desire to worship God in the same way as they speak one to another, that is addressing the LORD as “You.” Right now they are using inferior texts (in the 1979 and 1985 prayer books) which both are poor English and have a different doctrine from that contained in the BCP editions of 1662, 1928 & 1960.
3. In order to bring the minority (1) and the majority (2) into the beginnings of a basic unity in Christ and in practical terms, one way forward is for the minority and majority to use one and the same Rite, with the same structure, content and doctrine, and to use the same basic lectionary, at least on Sundays and major feasts for The Order of Holy Communion.
4. The only possible way to do this, and to remain firmly within the Anglican Way and to be seen so to do, is for the majority who wish to address God as “you” to use the classic BCP Rites in contemporary English. That is they are provided with a good and straight equivalent text in a readable and meaningful form of contemporary English – and a form that will last for a decade, in which time there will be opportunity and time for fellow Anglicans to learn from each other and forge a common way forward under Christ the Lord.
5. Using One Rite allows for unity with comprehensiveness and unity with different churchmanship, as long as charity prevails. Local distinctives can be seen and explained as merely local and not of the essence of the genuine Anglican Way.
6. There are in existence attempts here and there in England, Australia and North America to provide the beginnings of such a contemporary form of the classic BCP, but nowhere is there yet a complete text of the major services of the BCP in an acceptable form. (For more information see e.g., Worshipping the Lord in the Anglican Way. Parallel texts…., from www.anglicanmarketplace.com ).
7. To produce such a TEXT is not the same as producing a new Liturgy from scratch! It is a matter of using available skills to produce an equivalency to the classic text and doing so as well as possible as soon as possible.
8. The Prayer Book Societies of Canada and the USA by their charters are committed to the preservation of the historic, classic texts and so they cannot do this task officially. It needs to be taken on with the support of a society or institute or organization or large church that can raise the money to pay for the typesetting and printing in a suitable form of the text, and then distributing it to the churches of the Network, AMiA etc. I have offered to be a coordinator of such a project because I have acquired a little expertise in this area over the years and have the time, I think, to do it between now and the General Convention of June 2006. (I estimate that $20.000.00 – twenty thousand would be sufficient for the enterprise if labor is free, and much of this would be recoverable when the book was sold to congregations at a wholesale price.)
9. For this proposal to work churches would need to drop the use of the 1979 and 1985 prayer books on Sundays and use only the genuine BCP in contemporary language.
10. Churches would also need to decide to use one form of the Rite or the other consistently without mixing the two for each form of language (the “Thou” and the “Thee”) has its own logic and style and mixing them harms communication and piety. If God is “Thou” he cannot in the same sentence also be “You.”
    

I realize that more than a Common Rite is necessary to unite the many streams that now flow in North America. But we have to start somewhere and that somewhere has to be at ground level, not in talks of leaders here and there.

I shall be honored to receive serious correspondence about this or make visits to speak about it. Finally, may I say that I speak only in my own name, no Board of any group has as yet considered it and endorsed it. Thank you again for your patience.

September 19, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)