A proposal to create discussion and prayerful investigation
Anglicans worldwide are finding that the so-called “Instruments of Unity” are not apparently much good at unifying. In the twenty-first century that have been seen to lack authority and efficacy to create spiritual, centripetal forces to overcome the powerful spiritual, centrifugal forces which presently are tearing the Anglican family apart.
Fine words and sentiments, even wise pronouncements and claims of bonds of affection from Lambeth Palace, the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and Bishops here and there (and from the last Lambeth Conference of 1998) do no seem to be having any positive effect towards unifying dysfunctional, even warring, family members in truth and love. It is clear that the “Instruments of Unity” are obviously not going to be the sole or even primary means of making the divided Anglican family into a genuine Communion of [autonomous] Churches. To those who think that they can and will be, the words of the psalmist speak to us: “Put not your trust in princes….”
What united Anglicans fifty years ago (and for centuries before then), and allowed there to be “bonds of affection”, was a deep sense of having something in common, something that was more than a shared history, heritage and hope. That something in common existed in the center, as it were, of the vital common heritage of devotion and piety, of church planting and growth, of the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, and the creation of dioceses and provinces. It was a shared Liturgy, a profound yet simple Liturgy for daily prayer, Sunday worship, and for baptisms, confirmations, weddings, funerals and services of ordination.
It was Common Prayer, a set of texts/rites for the worship of the Church, and found in The Book of Common Prayer, first published as the expression of Reformed Catholicism for the Church of England in 1549. This Prayer Book easily fitted into the coat pocket of the man and the handbag of the woman, and its primary content was biblical citations and passages, woven together in a structured manner for the glory of God in worship and prayer.
The use of this Liturgy distinguished the Anglican from the Presbyterian, the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic and provided, when used with the Bible, a means of living before God in Christ Jesus in grace and holiness for 356 days a year for congregations, families and individual persons.
Naturally, its primary editions are in English, a fine yet understandable English from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as may be seen in its most used edition, that of 1662, from the reign of Charles II. It is this edition which has been translated into over 150 languages since then, and it is this edition which the large Anglican Church of Nigeria has very recently in 2005 declared to be its standard for worship and doctrine, and also the means it will use for deciding with whom it is in Eucharistic communion! It is this edition which has also been gently edited in such English-speaking countries as Canada, South Africa and the USA to become the Prayer Book of the Anglican Churches in these lands (e.g., 1928 edition in the USA).
What has happened to this Liturgy? Why it is no longer the real basis of Anglican unity in truth?
For an answer we have to look back to the period after World War II, and to note the powerful cultural winds that blew most strongly in the 1960s and early 1970s and deeply affected the practice of Christianity in the West. These gale-force winds not only profoundly changed the R.C. Church; but, they also deeply disturbed and changed the Anglican Communion of Churches, especially in the West/North.
For example, the Lord our God, who had been addressed as “Thou art” for as long as English had been spoken, now became as one of us and was addressed as “You are”! New theories of translation led to the publication of new versions of the Bible and with these were produced new forms of worship. Soon, alongside the true Anglican Liturgy there appeared experimental forms of service, soon collected into “Books of Alterative Services.” And, such was the power of the cultural typhoon in the USA that the Name of the received Liturgy was actually – in an act of piracy by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1976 – transferred to the new “Book of Varied and Alternative Services.” This was a clever move by progressive liberals for it took the Anglican Liturgy out of the official life of this Church.
With the arrival of new Bible translations/paraphrases and new forms of service, together with the arrival of new Morality, new forms of Ministry, new Dress-Codes, new Music, new roles for Bishops and new Architecture, the use of the Anglican Liturgy (with its tremendous heritage of music and art, devotion and piety) was declared by bishops and leaders to be out of date, irrelevant and too complicated for the Church in the modern era. Congregations were told it had to be replaced by exciting new forms to meet the needs of a new era, epoch and opportunity. How else could the young be recruited?
So the unity of the Anglican Way (a unity with comprehensiveness and local particularities), which had existed worldwide through one Liturgy was now in the West (but happily not in Africa and Asia) lost, even as that Liturgy was either banned or beaten down by many sincere but ill-informed clergy. And to fill the vacuum, the emphasis on “the Instruments of Unity” began in earnest. A family, which no longer had any common activity, speech and sentiments, and whose leaders extolled its great variety when meeting with its One LORD had to be kept together! And the way that emerged was an attempt at a weak form of hierarchy. The Archbishop of Canterbury could not be the Pope; the Lambeth Conference could not be an ecumenical council; the Anglican Consultative Council could not be a kind of Vatican Congregations, and the Primates’ Meeting could not be the Meeting of Cardinals with the Pope, but at least they could, as a minimal hierarchy, possibly hold the dysfunctional family together – especially if helped from time to time by Commissions chaired by an Irish Archbishop!
But the Instruments are not fulfilling the confidence placed in them! Yet they are here to stay, at least for a decade and more. So I am not suggesting that Anglicans abandon the Instruments of Unity; but, that they look to them with realism and not as the major means of salvation and unity in truth for the Anglican Family. The Instruments can surely help but only if there is a greater force for unity present and at work.
Therefore, what I suggest is that Anglicans at the grass roots dare to do what their leaders in the West would not have them do. I recommend that serious thought and diligent prayer be given to the possibility of the restoration of the One Liturgy as the basis [the standard Formulary] of the Anglican Way. After all, most of the African Provinces do not need any convincing for they are basically there already!
And as the Episcopal Church of the USA has been a cause of much of the present dysfunctional life of the Anglican family, perhaps the USA is the place from which to launch’ and then take to its practical outworking, this suggestion.
However, for this proposal for One Liturgy to have any opportunity to work I think that the way in which The Book of Common Prayer (1662) is now normally available (as a compact, small hardbound book in Roman type) has to be changed. That is, changed not in the actual content of the Liturgy but in the layout of the pages, the font, the type, and the binding.
Before Vatican II made possible the arrival of the Roman Mass in the vernacular, there were various Missals in which the Tridentine Latin text was on one side and a dignified translation into English, or French, or German or whatever on the other side. With this model in mind, I suggest that as a major means for the unifying of the Anglican Way, in the West as a starter, that there be a conscious recovery of the Anglican Liturgy in a new format which preserves the text of the 1662 edition on one side of the page and (to take account of what has happened to addressing God since the 1960s in the West/North) on the other side there be a parallel text in contemporary English, where God is addressed as “You”. In this arrangement, the classic text would be the standard of doctrine (Formulary) but either text could be used for public worship. Further, the accompanying ceremonial, music and prayers for local persons and needs would be determined locally for the aim is uniformity in formulary but comprehensiveness in use.
[Where there are differences between the 1662 edition and say the 1928 USA edition then options could be built in for the use of the latter where that was desired; however, in order to have a universal standard, the 1662 edition would need to be seen as the primary edition and that by which the Anglican Way is first identified and defined.]
To make sense of this One Anglican Liturgy, the use of any other types of liturgy would truly have to return (as was intended when alternative services were first produced in the 1960s) to being seen as occasional alternatives to the use of the standard Anglican Liturgy and not as the primary liturgy itself. Further, they would be subject to the doctrine contained in the Formulary.
If the pioneer printing of this edition of 1662 with parallel texts does not contain the text of the Epistle and Gospel for each Sunday and Holy Day but simply states what are the passages to be read (and suggests the appropriate Versions to be used), then the book itself will not have too many pages. There will be need to bear in mind in the contemporary English part the possibility of canticles and versicles being chanted or sung and this will call for special care and expertise in preparation. Likewise the contemporary version of the Psalter will pose problems for chanting and will probably not be done initially as part of the pioneer edition of the parallel texts.
Thus it would appear that what needs to be done is for there to be the preparation by a small team of this edition of parallel texts based on the BCP 1662, then for this to be widely circulated in order for there to be opportunity for people all over the West, but especially in North America, to see what it looks like and feels like, and what are the possibilities of its use. Waiting for an international meeting to agree to all this and to appoint a committee to get on with it is not realistic. A start has to be made and if the product has worth it will gain acceptance and from the pioneer edition will develop a further edition which will then truly compete for its true position as the Anglican Liturgy by causing its competitors of recent vintage to step down from their high places. During this process, probably the weight of the Nigerian and Ugandan and other Churches will be added to the restoration of the One Anglican Liturgy as both the way of worship and the Formulary.
Of course ECUSA will not (unless a mighty wind from heaven blows through it) have any interest in this proposal, but surely those who see themselves as “the orthodox” within that Church, along with the Anglican Mission in America and other bodies of Anglicans outside of the ECUSA or at least not in harmony with its leadership, will see the restoration of the classic Anglican model of One Liturgy which is also One Formulary as at least a possible way forward as a way towards unity in truth both in North America and in the whole world. How can anyone who is truly Anglican, that is Reformed Catholic Christian in mind and heart, be opposed to this proposal if he or she desires to see the revival and unity of the Anglican Way?
(Please note that the Prayer Book Society of the USA has prepared a book of parallel texts for the Daily Office, the Order for Holy Communion, the Litany and the Collects, with the title, Worshipping in the Anglican Way [from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1 800 727 1928]. This book is based on the BCP1928 not the 1662 and is not part of the above proposal, but is an experimental means of leading people through a contemporary text to the classic text.)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
No comments:
Post a Comment