From submission to control in parish life
A discussion starter
Episcopalians of the USA seem to have forgotten that what bound the dioceses of the Protestant Episcopal Church together from the eighteenth well into the twentieth century was a common constitution, with a common liturgy (the Book of Common Prayer in its editions of 1789, 1892 & 1928), a common set of ordination rites (printed and bound with the BCP), and a common confession of faith (in the Creeds, Catechism and Articles of Religion, printed and bound with the BCP). True enough there were different schools or theological emphasis and churchmanship from Latitudinarian to Anglo-Catholic, but generally speaking, and despite a civil war, there was unity in comprehensiveness because of the use of a common liturgy and common formularies.
Clergy felt duty bound by their ordination vows to use the services from the Prayer Book and these only. So a visitor making the rounds would expect and hear the same service everywhere but of course with differences in music, ceremonial and preaching. And what was true in the USA was also true in Canada and Britain and throughout the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations, where Anglican provinces and churches were found.
The point to note is that the bishops and clergy took it as normal and as a duty to God and Church to submit to the use of the printed, set liturgy and in doing so they saw this submission and usage as a distinguishing mark of being Episcopalian or Anglican.
Regettably, there was a revolution in Liturgy within Anglican Provinces of the West/North in the 1970s and it followed bad advice given by the Lambeth Conference of 1968. They all began separately within their own autonomy and by their own liturgical commissions to produce “alternative services” in “modern style and structure” and also in “contemporary language”. Eventually these all looked alike but were by no means identical in content and size! So by the 1980s the Church of England and other western Provinces had for use the classic Book of Common Prayer and alongside it a much thicker book containing a variety of alternative forms for all the basic services of the Church. Bishops urged parishes to use the new in preference to the old! (The ECUSA was more radical for it abandoned the classic BCP and had only a Book of Varied services which it dishonestly named the BCP and forced it on many unwilling parishes! – and since 1979 it has produced various sets of further services to add to the variety.)
Recently, most of these initial services have been revised and new books have been published of supposedly improved alternative services – e.g., in England there is now the multi-volume Common Worship. Thus, at the parish level, the rector and vestry are faced with a tremendous choice, which they are encouraged by the experts to make use of and not be tied down to just one form week by week – after all, is not liturgical variety the spice of modern church life? So the modern books/websites of options for liturgy have elevated the rector (or the rector with worship committee) to the position of virtually total control of what amounts to liturgy for the congregation, for it is claimed he/she and they know best.
So, remarkable, in thirty years there has been a dramatic move from submission to control at the parish level by clergy. No wonder we have a major crisis of hun proportions in modern Anglicanism in the West/North!
And to keep up the appearance that this massive variety is still “common prayer” the definition of common prayer has been revised by the experts to mean – not texts used in common by all – but a common simple structure with a few required elements. So, get the shape right and put in the necessaries like the Lord’s Prayer and you have Anglican Liturgy and “common prayer”!
So the autonomy of the Province to decide worship, doctrine and discipline is now matched by the autonomy of the parish in matters liturgical. And thereby what both bound parishes together in dioceses and national Provinces and what bound Provinces together as the Anglican Communion until the 1970s, has virtually disappeared. No wonder the Windsor Report of 2004, aware of the confusion and divisions called for a greater emphasis on the Instruments of Unity (e.g., the role of Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates’ Meeting) with the making of a common covenant of membership for all to sign!
What is missing is, of course, that which served as the glue for a very long time, the presence of a Common Prayer/Liturgy through the use of one Book (in local editions), a common way of ordaining clergy and bishops (the Ordinal) and a common Confession of Faith (the Articles and Creeds and Catechism) in all Provinces and all parishes (allowing for a comprehensiveness of churchmanship and a variety of languages).
Probably we have gotten so used to the freedom involved in local control (and with it the questionable claims by clergy that modern people need modern forms of service with variety to feel that what they are doing is relevant and meaningful) that it will take nothing short of a miracle for clergy and lay leaders to be willing to return to submission for the sake of truth and unity, and truly, for the greater glory of God. Let us be clear, submission to anyone or anything is not a virtue in the estimation of most westerners. It is there of course in the armed forces and elsewhere out of necessity, but, as a voluntary activity seen as a virtue, either in marriage or in the church, it is rare and is even declared to be a weakness when seen in action!
On what basis can the Anglican Family be a genuine Fellowship, locally and internationally, except by the possession of common Formularies which are themselves based upon the Sacred Scriptures and contain the Creeds?
The use of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral has been suggested as a means to unify parishes in dioceses and Provinces as a Communion. But this document from the late 19th century is all about the basics required for the union of Anglican Provinces with other Churches (e.g. Lutheran or Methodist or Old Catholic). It is not sufficient in its scope to be the internal bonds that unite Anglicans.
If there is a willingness in the West/North to submit to a norm as a means to unify the one jurisdiction known as the Anglican Way, then that norm has to be the Common Prayer and the Formularies. The real Common Prayer, which is now only available in traditional English, could be rendered carefully into contemporary English so that there would be a choice of traditional of contemporary forms of the one service at the local level, with variety in churchmanship, music etc. This choice, however, would be minimal in comparison with the vast possibilities for choice now there.
If these route were adopted it would take a massive effort in education first of clergy and then of congregations, for the right to local choice is deeply embedded right now in the mindset and spirituality of modern Episcopalians. Only a spiritual earthquake or a mighty spiritual hurricane could possibly bring needed change. And only very sensitive pastoral care could cause it to come in smoothly.
My judgment, however, is that it is the only way to unite the people of the Anglican Way and in saying this I am glad to be able to state that the Anglican Church of Nigeria has publicly stated much the same thing – unity on the basis of the Scripture and Formularies, not via the instruments of unity, so called.
In this assertion I look for support from the Network, the American Anglican Council and other evangelical and anglo-catholic “orthodox” groups in the USA. If they all have a different strategy that they believe will work then I ask them to publish it so that we can all ponder it cartefully.
Petertoon@msn.com November 19, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment