The ACNA Theological Lens: The Guiding Principles Behind the Proposed ACNA Prayer Book—Part 8

By Robin G. Jordan

In this eighth article on The Initial Report of the Prayerbook and Common Liturgy of the Anglican Church in North America we complete our examination of the report and the “theological lens” that the taskforce has developed to guide its compilation of an Ordinal and a Prayer Book for use in the Anglican Church in North America. This article will examine the final section of the report, which is entitled “4. Recommendation for the immediate future.” The section is divided into two subsections. We will examine each subsection in turn.

The first subsection is entitled “A. For the present:.” It begins with the following statement:

1. A great strength of the 1928 American BCP and the 1962 Canadian BCP is that they are books which clearly and consciously are in direct succession to the 1662 prayerbook tradition. Both, however, can become obstacles to modern comprehension because of their 16th century language and limited acknowledgment of new approaches to the sacramental life.

While the 1928 American Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book do in a number of ways bear a greater family resemblance to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer than later Anglican service books, they also differ significantly in a number of ways from the 1662 Prayer Book. They are far from gentle revisions of the 1662 Prayer Book or North American editions of the 1662 Prayer Book as the late Peter Toon claimed. The 1662 Prayer Book is substantially the 1552 Prayer Book. On the other hand, the 1928 revision moves the American Prayer closer to the semi-reformed 1549 Prayer Book and the pre-Reformation medieval service books and further away from the 1552-1662 Prayer Book. At the time the 1928 American Prayer Book was authorized, the Episcopal Church was predominantly Anglo-Catholic and Broad Church in doctrine and practice. The 1928 American Prayer Book reflects these influences. The 1962 Canadian Prayer Book shows not only the influence of the 1928 American Prayer Book but also that of the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book. The English parliament twice rejected the latter because it was too Anglo-Catholic in its theology and liturgical usages.

In this subsection the taskforce makes the remarkable statement that the 1928 American Prayer Book and the 1962 Prayer Book “can become obstacles to modern comprehension because of their… limited acknowledgment of new approaches to the sacramental life.” We are prompted to ask to what “new approaches to the sacramental life” is the taskforce referring. The report does not say. We are left to guess what they may be—the Roman Catholic sacramental system with its seven sacraments, infant communion, adoration of the sacramental species, holy unction, in particular extreme unction. These approaches to “the sacramental life” are not new. The sixteenth century Reformers rejected all of them on solid biblical grounds.

2. The Church of England’s Book of Common Worship (2000) and the Prayer Book for Australia (1995) include modern language versions of most of the 1662 texts, the only caveat is that they also have many additions beyond that of the 1662 texts. The Book of Common Worship, in particular, has so many options that it is difficult to navigate for both the celebrant and congregation.

The Book of Common Worship is the liturgy of the Church of South India. Common Worship (2000) is a collection of services that the Church of England adopted as a supplement to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. It contains both traditional and contemporary language services.

Common Worship (2000) and The Prayer Book for Australia (1995) do include contemporary language versions of the 1662 Communion Office. They do, as this subsection notes, also have a number of additions. These additions are optional and are largely enrichments to the 1662 Communion Office favored by Anglo-Catholics in the United Kingdom and Australia. They are not as numerous as the taskforce would lead readers of the report to believe.

The multi-volume Common Worship (2000) is designed to be a worship resource for use by parish worship planners and not a service book for use by the congregation. There is a people’s edition of Common Worship. It contains the non-optional texts. The celebrant and the congregation are not required to navigate a host of options if parish worship planners are making proper use of Common Worship as they will have chosen what options will be used in the service beforehand and will have printed them in the service bulletin.

The taskforce in its reference to the modern language versions of the 1662 texts in Common Worship and A Prayer Book for Australia in this part of the report appears to be offering an argument against using these texts. Otherwise, these references make no sense. Common Worship and A Prayer Book for Australia are responses to the growing theological diversity in the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Australia.

The Anglican Church of Australia has produced two supplements to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which is the official Prayer Book of that province as the 1662 Prayer Book is the official Prayer Book of the Church of England. They are An Australian Prayer Book (1978) and A Prayer Book for Australia (1995). The Anglican Church of Australia authorized the use of both service books together with the 1662 Prayer Book. The Anglican Church of Australia also authorizes dioceses to develop and adopt their own liturgies. Ballarat (Anglo-Catholic) and Sydney (Reformed-Evangelical) both have developed their own service books. The Anglican Church of Australia recognizes that its dioceses are too theologically diverse to impose a single liturgy upon all of them. The Anglican Church of Australia was formed from a group of originally independent dioceses, each with its own history, theological leanings, and connection with the Church of England. In the Province of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America, which like the Anglican Church of Australia was formed from a group of originally independent dioceses, each diocese has its own Prayer Book.

3. Since those who prefer Cranmerian language are already using either the BCP 1928 or the Anglican Service Book, there is no reason to publish yet another traditional language book. A BCP for the ACNA should be in modern language, with few variables, and closely relate to the classical BCP texts.

It is noteworthy that the two traditional language Prayer Books mentioned in this part of the report are the 1928 American Prayer Book and The Anglican Service Book. The latter is based upon Rite I of the 1979 American Prayer Book. Eucharistic Prayer I is the 1928 American Prayer of Consecration. Eucharistic Prayer II is a revision of the 1928 American Consecration Prayer and contains wording from the 1549 and the 1637 Scottish Canon in form of a petition that the elements “may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy dearly-beloved Son Jesus Christ.” Bishop Stephen Gardiner argued in his critique of the 1549 Prayer Book that the use of these words in the 1549 Canon upheld the doctrine of transubstantiation. There is no mention of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer or the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.

This part of the report goes on to state, “A BCP for the ACNA should be in modern language, with few variables, and closely relate to the classical BCP texts.” The taskforce does not explain why it believes that a Prayer Book for use in the ACNA should have few variables. From this statement it would appear that the taskforce is intent upon forcing all worship in the ACNA into the same mold. The taskforce also does not identify what it considers “the classical BCP texts.” It may be assumed from what is stated elsewhere in the report, the introduction to the ACNA Ordinal, and the taskforce’s June 2011 report to the College of Bishops that texts to which it is referring are not those of the classic Anglican Prayer Book, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, but to the texts of the 1549 and 1928 Prayer Books. The Procrustean bed with which the taskforce will force uniformity in worship upon the Anglican Church in North America will be an Anglo-Catholic one.

4.The American BCP 1979 is self-consciously a revolutionary composition, rather than a conservative revision of the 1928 BCP. It has some redeeming characteristics, however. It is used by more than half of the congregations surveyed by our Task Force, and it is relatively easy to follow. Most importantly, it has been memorized by many people in our congregations, and for those under the age of forty, it is the only prayer book they have known. A modern language adaptation of the rite I liturgies of the 1979 BCP should be a major priority in ACNA’s immediate future.

After acknowledging that the 1979 American Prayer Book is used by more than half of the congregations that the taskforce surveyed, it is relatively easy to use, it has been memorized by a large number of people in ACNA congregations, and for those under the age of forty, it is the only Prayer Book they have known, by some strange logic the taskforce concludes that a “modern language adaptation” of Rite I should be a major priority for the immediate future. Most congregations using the 1979 American Prayer Book use Rite II. The services their members have memorized are Rite II services. A “modern language adaptation” of Rite I will be as much a new liturgy to them as one adapted from other sources such as An Australian Prayer Book (1978), A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), or Common Worship (2000). The taskforce’s choice of Rite I, however, is not surprising. It contains an order for the administration of Holy Communion that uses the “ordo” recommended by the 1958 Lambeth Conference in combination with texts from the 1928 Prayer Book and has an alternative Great Thanksgiving that incorporates wording from the 1549 and 1637 Scottish Canons.

The second subsection is entitled “B. Future Work to be done.” The report identifies as the taskforce’s future work:

1. Modern language version of the 1662/1928 rites for Eucharist, Baptism, and Ordination.

The placement of the 1662 rites in conjunction with the 1928 rites is noteworthy. It reflects the influence of the late Peter Toon who claimed that the 1928 Prayer Book was the American edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The 1928 American Prayer Book differs significantly from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in doctrine and liturgical usages. See my article, “What’s Wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?” The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is substantively the Reformed liturgy of the 1552 Prayer Book. The 1928 American Book, on the other hand, is a repudiation of that liturgy.

Even more disconcerting than the taskforce’s equation of the 1928 American Prayer Book with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer are its plans for “contemporary ‘Tracts for Our Times.’”

2. Contemporary “Tracts for Our Times” which will include:

The Centrality of the Eucharist
The Continuing Significance of the Daily Office
The Lectionary
The Liturgical Year
Hymnody and Music
The Ordinal
The Baptismal Rite, Baptismal Reform and “Indiscriminate" Baptism, Current Misuse of “Inclusivist” Baptismal Theology

Such tracts, if approved and endorsed by the College of Bishops, in effect, become doctrinal statements of the Anglican Church in North America. Considering the theological leanings of the taskforce and the College of Bishops these tracts would in all likelihood assign a marginal space to Reformed-Evangelicals in the ACNA.

What is notably absent from The Initial Report of the Prayerbook and Common Liturgy Taskforce of the Anglican Church in North America is any recognition of the need for simplicity, flexibility, and adaptability in a Prayer Book for use on the mission field. North America is the largest English-speaking mission field in the world. In many places North America is post-Christian and post-modern. What is also conspicuously missing from the report is any acknowledgment of the need for alternative forms of morning and evening worship such as Common Worship’s A Service of the Word or A Prayer Book for Australia’s A Service of Praise, Prayer, and Proclamation. If the Anglican Church in North America is going to reach a large segment of the unchurched population and to enfold them into new churches, it will need a Prayer Book that offers more worship options than Morning and Evening Prayer and Holy Communion. If this report and its June 2011 report to the College of Bishops accurately reflect the taskforce’s thinking, it is preparing a Prayer Book for a world that no longer exists.

A third omission from this report, which is worthy of note, is the lack of any recognition of the need for a comprehensive liturgy, one that is acceptable to Reformed-Evangelicals as well as Anglo-Catholics and adherents of the Ancient-Future movement and “three streams” theology. Based upon the available evidence the taskforce is likely to produce and the College of Bishops authorize for use in the Anglican Church in North America a liturgy that is far from comprehensive. Rather the ACNA Prayer Book will be decidedly partisan in its doctrine and liturgical usages. It will, like the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books before it, be a party book.