Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Why is the AMiA so much in love with the 1979 ECUSA Prayer Book?

It was my privilege to attend the Anglican Mission in America Winter Conference in Birmingham, Alabama, January 11- 15. There were about 800 present and one could not but be impressed by at least four things:

  • that the conference was well organized;
  • that the 800 folks there were excited about their vocation to be Anglicans in mission;
  • that in their relation to the Primates (especially of Rwanda) and to Bishop Chuck Murphy there was the (rare these days) presence of biblical and Christian patriarchy and hierarchy;
  • and that there was virtually no criticism of ECUSA or any other Anglican entity (for the emphasis was positive on evangelism and growth).

This said, and I hope and pray in the best possible spirit, I ask the question:

Why, O Why, is the leadership of the AMiA so tied to the ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book?

In the Opening Service on the Wednesday evening (based on 1979 Prayer Book) all the clergy present re-committed themselves to the Lord Jesus in mission and to the doctrinal basis of the AMiA. The latter contains no reference to the 1979 Prayer Book as a doctrinal formulary, but rather points to the classic edition of the Book of Common Prayer (now in 152 languages), the English standard edition of 1662, with the accompanying Ordinal and Articles of Religion.

The AMiA has an excellent doctrinal foundation. Thanks be to God! Yet there seems to be some kind of inability to see that the love-affair with the 1979 ECUSA Book cannot remain if this foundation is to be maintained. This is not a matter of “Thou-Thee” over against “You” but is at the level of foundational and fundamental doctrine.

The 1979 Prayer Book was designed by Liberal, Anglican Catholics (= Affirming Catholics today) in order to undermine the religion of the classic Prayer Book, Ordinal and Articles (as represented in the USA by the American editions of the classic BCP, those of 1789, 1892 & 1928).

During the five days of the Conference the BCP 1662 was not used publicly at all, and the 1928 edition of the BCP was used only for Morning Prayer on three mornings at which about 30 people attended (the majority went to non-Anglican forms of morning service a little later or to 1979 services at the same time). The major services of the Conference were all taken from the 1979 Prayer Book, as if the gathering were evangelical ECUSA people. The Ordination Service on Saturday afternoon was a straight lift from this Prayer Book, as were the two Services of Holy Communion (Rites One and Two) on Sunday morning.

Only when the Right Revd Dr John Rodgers gave a seminar on the future of the Anglican Communion did one sense that the Conference was in touch with the historic, classic tradition of Reformed Catholic worship, doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Way. Another seminar on “What is Anglicanism?” turned out to be a most sincere description by a recent convert to the AMiA of his own experience of Anglicanism as he, a Wheaton College evangelical, has chosen and received it.

The only reasons that I can think of to explain the love-affair of a reforming group with the major sign of the apostate Church it has left behind are the following:

  1. Sheer convenience. The book is there, available and they know it. It seems to be in accessible “modern” language.
  2. Lack of discrimination in matters theological, doctrinal and liturgical. Mind on mission not on Reformed Catholic doctrine.
  3. Many in the AMiA seem to be Evangelicals and/or Charismatics desirous of a liturgy rather than Reformed Catholics committed both to Mission and to classic Anglican worship, doctrine and discipline. They know very little indeed about Anglican history, doctrine, liturgy, music, devotion, moral theology etc.

The fact of the matter is that the 1979 Book is not suitable in any way for a Mission which desires to be doctrinally pure and to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness and in spirit and truth. I do urge AMiA clergy & laity to read: Neither Orthodoxy nor a Formulary. The 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church by the late Louis R Tarsitano and myself (call 1 800 727 1928 or go on line to get a copy at www.anglicanmarketplace.com). This will help to show what kind of a book the 1979 Prayer Book really is.

Let me indicate briefly why to use the 1979 Book so indiscriminately for ordinations is to undermine the doctrine and mission of the AMiA.

  1. The set of services for ordaining deacons, priests and bishops was designed to undermine the doctrine of the historic, classic Ordinal found in the editions of the BCP of 1549, 1662 & 1928, and thus to remove the Reformed Catholic doctrine of the Threefold Ministry from American Anglicanism.
  2. The supposed foundations of this set of services in the Church of the third century (via Hippolytus etc.,) have now been shown to be very shaky at best and wrong at worst – see the recent Oxford History of Christian Worship, 2005, chapters one and two.
  3. The commitments and promises made by the candidates in 1979 text are much reduced from the classic rites in the Ordinal of 1549, 1662, 1928.
  4. The 1979 services were designed specifically to allow for the ordination of women to ALL THREE orders of ministry. But the AMiA states that women cannot be bishops and presbyters by the will of the Lord Jesus.
  5. The doctrine of the Trinity, the foundational doctrine of the Christian Faith, is presented at the beginning of each service in 1979 in the modern ECUSA revisionist form and is, to say the least, imprecise. “Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit” literally means, “Blessed be the One God who has three Names”. And, strictly speaking this is Sabellianism or Modalism or Unitarianism or all three. Why not begin “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” as in the Roman service or “Blessed be the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” as in the Orthodox service? Because ECUSA in 1979 wished to be different and did not care if it were heretical!

I cannot understand why the 1662 Ordinal (as is, or in a modern “You” equivalent) or the Rwandan Ordinal were not used.

I truly believe that it will be a sign of the maturing of the mindset and piety of the AMiA leadership and people as and when they shed the use of the 1979 Prayer Book and use another text or other texts which faithfully communicate the character, content and style of the biblically-based, historical Anglican Way of Reformed Catholicism. I would suggest that a classic edition of the Book of Common Prayer in its original “Thou/Thee” form or in a contemporary “You” form be used as soon as possible, at least part of the time. Let them remember that the BCP1662 was the book, along with the Bible, that Anglican missionaries took with them and it is still the most used text in the continent of Africa in village and town whether in English or in local languages.

drpetertoon@yahoo.com January 18, 2006

No comments: