January/February 1998 >ATE · 2018-09-01 · January/February 1998 >ATE Volume 17, Number 1 THE...

January/February 1998 Volume 17, Number 1

>ATE THE BI-MONTHLY MAGAZINE OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

The investiture of Frank Griswold in Washington Cathedral on January 10 as the new Presiding Bishop

^ confirmed that the new episcopal religion, * ^ ^ celebrating pantheism and relativism, ^ j

is firmly in place. For the new episcopal religion, conversion occurs in and by conversation. Since "God[dess]" is held to be through and in all, and since "truth" is possessed by all in differing ways, then it follows that in dialogue and conversation within "the community of f a i t h " progress is made . Griswold has said that he is eager "to deepen the conversation, helping people encounter others of different perspectives, to grow in truth that can only change because of the conversation itself."

The new

episcopal religion

delights in claiming

for itself "a capacity

for ambiguity and para

dox" which is both its

"glory and frustration."

This capacity for subjec

t iv ism and variety is

part iculary apparent

when we ask "Who is

Christ for you?" and

"What does the church

mean for you?" rather

than declaring what the

Church historically

has believed,

taught and

confessed.

Scripture behind. Griswold says that, "Broadly speaking, the Episcopal Church

is in conflict with Scripture (concerning sexual morality). The only way to justify this is to say that

Jesus talks about the Spirit guiding the church and guiding believers and bringing to their awareness things they cannot

deal with yet. So one would have to say that the mind of Christ operative over time has led the church to, in effect, contradict the

words of the Gospel [on sexual matters]."

THE LIVING PAST FOR THE PRESENT AND INTO THE FUTURE

CONT Jl/i^l X k5

3. Reflections from the Editor's Desk: New Canon Law ought to be rejected.

4. Apostasy and the Contemporary Religious Scene: Fr. Dick Kim makes important points.

5. Contemporary Worship: Dr. Louis Tarsitano considers what "contemporary" means.

6. Contemporary Music in Church: Fr. Rick Buechner makes some observations.

7-8. In Search of the Relevant and Contemporary: Mr. David Mills guides our thinking.

9. What is the "Common" in "Common Prayer"?: the Editor answers the question.

10. Leonardo da Vinci and Common Prayer: Dr. Carreker explains the connection.

11-12. PECUSA, INC. & DFMS: an unfolding drama concerning the Episcopal Church.

13-14. Why, Why, O Why?: Debate about "Common Prayer" in Cyberspace.

15. The Morning Prayer Project from Canada.

16. The Investiture of Frank Griswold.

What is the Prayer Book Society? First of all what it is not: 1. It is not a historical society — though it does take history seriously.

2. It is not merely a preservation society — though it does seek to preserve what is good.

3. It is not merely a traditionahst society — though it does receive holy tradition gratefully.

4. It is not a reactionary society, existing only by opposing modem trends.

5. It is not a synod or council, organized as a church within the Church.

In the second place, what it is: 1. It is composed of faithful Episcopalians who seek to keep alive in the Church the classic Common Prayer Tradition of the Anglican

Way, which began within the Church of England in 1549. They wish to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness and in a dignified and understandable English.

2. It claims that the Constitution of the Episcopal Church gives to rectors and parishes, as well as individual Episcopalians, the right to use the last genuine Book of Common Prayer in America, the 1928 BCP

3. It is committed to educating and informing people of the nature and content of the Common Prayer Tradition, and its use for Holy Communion, the Daily Offices, Baptism, Funerals, family prayers and personal devotions.

4. It is involved (in cooperation with sister societies in Canada, Britain and Australia) in maintaining and teaching that Biblical Faith, Order and Morality to which the Common Prayer Tradition, along with the other Anglican Formularies, witness.

5. It seeks to do the above through lectures, seminars, pubhcations, phone conversations, an internet web site and work in local churches. Its educational outreach is called the Cranmer-Seabury House of Studies.

TO MAINTAIN THE ANGLICAN WAY SUPPORT THE PRAYER BOOK SOCIETY Especially consider giving specific support to the Cranmer-Seabury House of Studies

Send your gift to the Philadelphia P.O.Box. 35220 Philadelphia, PA 19128 Call 1-800-727-1928 for details.

' p'-;?

MANDATE Editor: The Rev'd Dr Peter 'loon

MANDATE, Vol. 17. I. is published six times a year by the Prayer Book Society, a non-profit organization serving the Church. All gifts to the P.B.S. are tax-deductable. Recipients of Mandate are encouraged to send a minimum gift of $28.00.

Editorial and all other correspondence: P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia Pa. I9J28. Phone 1-800-PBS-1928. Postmaster: Please send address changes to The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128.

World-Wide Web address is http://www.cpiscopalian.org/pbsl928

2 MANDATE: January/February 1998 The Prayer Book Society of the Episcopal Church

http://www.cpiscopalian.org/pbsl928

Reflections from the Editor's Desk

The Rev 'd Dr. Peter Toon

NEW CANON LAW OUGHT TO BE REJECTED

O n January 1, 1998, there was a major change in Episcopal canon law, a change which included a change in doctrine. From this day the Episcopal Church mandated belief in the

ordination of women as bishops and priests. No-one can hold public office in this denomination who does not accept this new doctrine. Any bishop or priest who defies the new canons can be brought to trial and deposed.

The legislation which made possible the ordination of women was passed in 1976 (after eleven women had been illegally ordained by retired bishops in 1973). Since then the proportion of women as clergy has grown and so has their deployment in the Church. However, there are still dioceses and parishes where ordained women are not invited. The new legislation, passed in 1997 to be effective from January 1,1998, is intended to bring conformity into the Episcopal Church so that all parts of it receive the ministry of ordained women.

Understanding these changes Why it is that the General Convention in 1997 passed this leg

islation by a clear, majority vote? To answer this question we need to understand the cultural and

social movements of our time. To this end, I commend the recent book by Professor Mark Chaves, Ordaining Women. Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations (Harvard University Press, 1997).

The move to ordain women did not come about because godly people, engaged in Bible study and communal prayer, came to see that this was the will of God our Father and of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. True enough, some sincere people did come to believe that the Scriptures allowed or even commended the ordination of women.

The force which pushed not a few denominations to proceed with the ordination of women in the 1970's was from the secular culture (even if it was advocated by church members). Professor Chaves argues with clarity and from much evidence that the moves to ordain women were energized and clarified by the general, west-em cultural movement advocating the rights of individuals. A woman is an individual; a woman has individual rights; a woman is equal in rights to a man; a woman, therefore, has the right along with a man to be considered for ordination and ordained if deemed suitable.

The movement for women's ordination has been a major aspect of the attempt by liberal denominations to prove to the world and to themselves that they have accepted the modem agenda, that women have the same rights as men. The further act of mandating acceptance of it as a part of the denominational "Credo" is a further step in the adoption of the modem agenda of rights for women.

In earlier days in America there were women evangelists, preachers and pastors among the evangelical churches. The justification offered for their ministry was different from that offered in the 1970's by the main-line denominations. It was said of them then that God had given specific women special gifts of ministry and thus they were ministers not by right but by special vocation — the call of the Lord. (This explanation for women's public ministry is still given in parts of the world where civil rights is not a big issue in the churches.)

Who opposes ordaining women today? Professor Chaves identifies opposition to the ordaining of

women under two categories — sacramentalism and inerrancy. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and sections of Anglicanism and Lutheranism) are identified with sacramentalism and fundamentalist biblical churches with inerrancy. «

By sacramentalism, Chaves points to the doctrine that the minister at Holy Communion is the icon of Christ and since Christ was/ is male His living icon must also be male. By inerrancy Chaves points to the literal acceptance of the doctrine of the Headship of Christ, as taught by St.Paul, from which is deduced the teaching that a man is the head of his family and a male pastor is to be the head of the church family. A woman though equal to a man is equal not in terms of role but of complementarity.

However, these doctrines are held, writes Chaves, in the context of opposition to (at least part) of the modem agenda of individual rights and are thus best seen as ways of opposing the entrance of that agenda into the Church.

Evaluation It seems to me that Chaves is right to see the public policy of

the main-line denominations of America being formed by pressure from the culture which is dominated by individualism. The mandating of the acceptance of women's ordination by all office-holders in the Episcopal Church in 1998 certainly well illustrates the point.

By its new canon law the Episcopal Church outlaws all those who believe, teach and confess precisely what the same Church believed, taught, confessed and practiced up to very recent times. A major change has occurred and that is the full adoption of the secular doctrine of individual rights. There is to be no toleration in the long term of those whose faith and practice is that of the Episcopal Church since 1789, or that of the Anglican Church since the days of Celtic Christianity!

Perhaps it needs to be added that the "rights" doctrine stressed by the new elite of ECUSA is not the same doctrine that appears in the Declaration of Independence and other early American documents. There, rights flow from the righteousness of God, from the goodness of his plan in creation, and from the positive demands of his commandments. In the new doctrine, rights emanate from the individual, according to the claims of each, so that each individual person becomes in effect a little god. The new "rights" are also essentially negative, along the lines of "no one may stop me from doing what I want, and if I object no one else may do what offends me." They set forth a form of polytheism.

Furthermore, while the "ordination" of women was an error, this new enforcement plan is more serious and more final. All ambiguity is removed by the requirement of acceptance. This legislation represents ECUSA's complete and utter capitulation and submission, not to a "different form" of Christianity, but to a New Age religion of practical polytheism. Faithful Christians will reject the new canon law in the name of the one and only trae and living God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. #

The Prayer Book Society of the Episcopal Church MANDATE; January/February 1998 3

APOSTASY AND THE CONTEMPORARY

RELIGIOUS SCENE

by Fr. Richard Kim

All agree that the mainline denominations (Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran and so on) in

their official (central/national) stance have departed from their own earlier teaching on faith and morals of say fifty years ago. This change can be judged either positively (growing in wisdom and knowledge) or negatively (moving to apostasy and neo-paganism), according to where one is in making the judgment. So, for example, in the Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Synod views the recent work of the triennial General Conventions (1991,1994,1997) as leading to heterodoxy and apostasy, whereas the Women's Caucus and Integrity see that work as embracing the latest revelation from God[dess].

The question arises: what has caused denominations to change so radically their official Faith during the last fifty or so years? Several distinct as well as complementary answers are available: 1. The rejection not only of the old doc

trine of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, but also of the old rules of interpretation of the Same. In other words modem views of the Bible and how it is to be interpreted and understood have entered the churches from the seminaries and these have not been used to be supportive of the old Faith. In fact they have been used to give support to the practical implementation of the new religion by justifying from the Bible various innovations — e.g., the ordination of women and of active homosexual persons.

2. The move from thinking of and worshiping (a) the living God as the transcendent (above and beyond the cosmos in His glorious holiness and majesty) TRINITY and LORD, who has a relation of grace to His creation and creatures in space and time; to confessing (b) God[dess] as the immanent Deity present with, in and through the cosmos and integrated into its evolution and its history. This is a move AWAY from classical Theism (Trinitarian Theism) to a form of Pantheism (modem Panentheism). And in terms of the identity of Jesus Christ, it is a move from seeing Him as the etemal Son of God

made man for us and for our salvation, to that of seeing him as someone, whom God[dess] uniquely endowed, was present in, and used for the good of all.

3. The desire to be a part of the modemity and to embrace the central features of modemity as experienced in the West. This has meant in particular the adoption of the human rights agenda in its various forms as well as the modern philosophies which usually accompany such rights e.g., individualism, relativism, pragmatism, egalitarianism and utilitarianism. Here God[dess] is often assumed to be guiding the movement of culture and revealing the divine will in the "progress" of westem civilization, in terms of civil rights, women's rights, homosexual rights and animal rights. From the standpoint of those who sup

port the traditional religion, to offer all or one of the above three as causing the decay is not necessarily to say that there is not any good at all in the modem, scientific study of Scripture, in the emphasis upon the immanence of God and in the human rights agenda. Rather, it is to say that the allowing of one or both or all of these causes to dominate Christian thinking and acting has led to the corrupting and demise of traditional Christianity.

All affected, but all can be helped! It is reasonable to assume that all of us

living in westem society are affected by its ethos and activities. None of us can escape, for example, from the reality and power of self-centered individualism, which permeates society from top to bottom everywhere. What we can do is to become increasingly aware of it and know where it is to be embraced, rejected or modified.

One of the great values of using a classic, older prayer book regularly and carefully is that we encounter and embrace through it a wholly different doctrine of God, Christ, the Spirit, salvation, human dignity and worship than we find in the agendas of the modern, main-Une denominations. Thus we are given an opportunity not to be molded wholly by the modem, westem world but to gain a means of viewing the values and ethos of our society and culture.

If we use only a modem prayer book, a

real danger is that in being relevant we are merely re-echoing in the language of worship the language of secular modemity and thus worshiping Modernity or ourselves within modemity . Thus what is said to be contemporary worship tums out to be a different religion than that of one's grandparents and of the Church through space and time.

Further, the consistent use of an older prayer book helps us to understand the classic way of reading and understanding the Bible that it is one Canon containing Two Testaments, with Jesus Christ and His Father as its center and purpose. We enter into this Canon prayerfully and humbly, our minds formed by the basic teaching of the traditional Catechism, trath via the Creed, faith via the Lord's Prayer and obedience via the Commandments.

We read to be judged by the word of the Lord, not in our individualities to sit in judgment upon Scripture. The older prayer book (and for Episcopalians this means the classic of Book of Common Prayer, the latest being the 1928) has, therefore, a most important contemporary purpose and use. In the secularism and neo-paganism in which we live, this classic text proclaims the true identity of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, with salvation and eternal life in Him. It also provides a tried and tested means to worship the Holy Trinity in the beauty of holiness.

Frightful illustrations While no one but a monster would

commend the methods of Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, it is one of the tragedies of the end of the 20th century that the central belief of these hideous regimes, that political power is the highest good, has been adopted by the very nations that defeated them, and especially by their "mainline churches."

To act on this revised faith, it is also necessary to adopt the totalitarians' subtlest and most powerful tool: the redefinition of life itself in terms of political power, otherwise known as "the big lie," which by repetition becomes "the new trath." Hitler would never have risen to power without his Ministry of Propaganda or its befuddle-ment of the German people by new definitions of words like "honor," "faith," "loyalty," and "justice." Thus, when a German citizen spoke out in defense of traditional values against some Hitlerian abuse, he was silenced by the counter-charges of "disloyalty," "faithlessness," "injustice," and "a lack of honor." Who could support such a person, or defend his "evils"?

APOSTASY continued on page 8


"CONTEMPORARY WORSHIP."

WHAT EXACTLY IS IT?

The Rev 'd Dr. Louis R. Tarsitano

Nothing ages as quickly or badly as so-called "contemporary liturgy," except, perhaps, soft cheese. If ei

ther is not consumed right away, having it around becomes unpleasant.

This "freshness factor" was a vocal concern of bored revisionists at last summer's General Convention. They confessed to missing the "thrill" of trial use, and many volunteered that what shreds remain of the Church's ancient order of worship are still "too constraining."

It may well be, however, that one of few beliefs that unite radicals, evangelicals, and Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal Church today, unequally yoked as they are, is the opinion that the 1979 book has gone well past its "use by" date.

Another, unfortunately, is the conviction that the classic Book of Common Prayer is not, and cannot be "contemporary," so that its use must be prohibited, or at least discouraged, "for the good of the Church." That their version of "contemporary worship" has emptied churches throughout the world doesn't seem to enter into the picture. Neither, apparently, do four and a half centuries of concrete results in building successful churches and faithful Christian lives according to the Common Prayer tradition.

Much of the confusion about "contemporary liturgies" comes from the use of two very different and competing definitions of the word "contemporary."

Under the first, "contemporary" means "conformed to these times, including then-fads and fashions." When those who hold to this first definition speak of "liturgy," they mean to provide the same sort of stimulation and entertainment that their congregations receive from television, movies, and rock-concerts.

Of course, the budgets to produce the unabashedly secular forms of such diversions are larger than most local churches can afford, except for the few mega-churches that have gone "show-biz." Most "contemporary liturgy," then, at least in this sense, will look cheap and out-of date, like a local dinner theatre's umpteenth production of Camelot, with a rib-eye thrown in for ten dollars. This shouldn't be too surprising, since for many "contemporary liturgists," worship is just another form of "theatre," and a "medium" for self-expression.

On the other hand, the second defini

tion of "contemporary" means simply "in these times," with an accompanying sense that certain things are of permanent or perennial value. Think, for example, of the stylistic differences between older and newer recordings of the canon of classical music. In the best "contemporary" recordings, there is a freshness that avoids unnecessary mystification and ponderousness, alongside a lively interest in original instra-mentation. The old is made new, and a living part of the present through imagination and skill, and according to an intrinsic value that will not simply pass away with the times.

In this second sense, the historic Book of Common Prayer and the tradition it represents provide a pastor with any number of "contemporary" options. He can, for example, take God, his people, the liturgy, and his office in all seriousness, without taking himself too seriously. He can stress the objective over the subjective: anathema to the first sort of contemporaneity, but essential to the second.

He needn't pretend to be a creature of another age, whether a pseudo-baroque cardinal mincing through the service or the Hollywood version of a Roundhead parson. He can avoid the "stained-glass" voice, and the Masterpiece Theatre accent, to speak the words of the Prayer Book as a living conversation with the Great King in his court.

The Prayer Book offers him ample opportunity through thoughtful biddings to relate worship to contemporary events. He can use the Decalogue to connect moral instruction, week by week, to the appropriate commandments. When making announcements, he can speak as a pastor and spiritual father, rather than a bureaucrat or overlord. The appointed lessons will provide him all the contemporary sermon material he could ask for, as they have for over fifteen

hundred years. Vestments pose no problem, if he wears

them as his uniform of office, without indulging in "dress-up" or self-expression. When a bride and groom dress formally for a wedding, no one laughs, unless their taste is awful, or they lack the dignity to match their clothes. A foretaste of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb can easily have such a happy dignity, if a pastor works to make it so.

Priests and congregations that desire to hold "prayer meetings" can use the Litany to join personal prayers with the prayer of Christ to his Father and the constant intercessions of the faithful Church. Those who want a hymn-sing, can just schedule one, without using it as a replacement for the common worship of the Church. Better yet. Evening Prayer can be done simply in twenty minutes, followed by as much singing as anyone wishes, with the confession, psalms, lessons, creed, and prayers to anchor the hymns in God's Kingdom and not in man's.

The Anointing of the Sick provides for healing services. The Offices of Instruction offer an enjoyable opportunity for more leaming and singing. The Catechism, used publicly and systematically, yields any number of topics for contemporary instraction in the Faith.

You get the picture. When Mel Gibson does Hamlet, it's plain silly to insist that the Book of Common Prayer "isn't contemporary." Besides, in the end, a sincere presentation of either Hamlet or the Book of Common Prayer, even if imperfect, will have more to offer our contemporary age than the best of Beavis and Butthead. #

(Fr. Tarsitano is Rector of St. Andrew's, Savannah, and, with Fr. Kim a great teacher of the Anglican Way in cyberspace!)

The Prayer Book Society of the Episcopal Church MANDATE: January/February 1998 5

s i^^ e B B * , s e ^ B H*^ te t l ^

CONTEMPORARY MUSIC IN CHURCH. houghts from "Why Catholics Can yt Sing" b^jamas Day (crossroad, 1992)

Frederick A. Buechner

Several years ago on Good Friday I participated in a local ecumenical service. The host congregation was responsible for the music, and had planned a fairly ambitious repertoire,

especially for a small south Georgia town weekday service. After the meditation on "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" a soloist walked to the microphone, and launched into "Let there be peace on earth." The congregation for the most part probably loved it; or perhaps they tolerated it.

One wonders, however, whether anyone noticed the irony of the moment. The Son of God, who has lived constantly in communion with His Father, for a brief but terrifying and necessary moment, experiences the utter alienation from this Father as he bears the sin of the entire world — while this person in the front of the church is singing at us for all he's worth: "Let there be peace on earth...and let it begin with ME!"

One man who wouldn't fail to miss that irony is Thomas Day, author of "Why Catholics Can't Sing," which is one of the most entertaining, if not sobering books ever written about the liturgical and musical scene in contemporary Westem Christendom. Reading Mr. Day's penetrating and at times funny book is to encounter a long lost friend. So you thought you were the only person in the world who, when forced to sing the happy go lucky refrain, "Eat his body drink his blood, and we'll sing a song of love, Alelu, Alelu, Alelu, Alelu-hoo-ya," thought he would throw up? Thomas Day is right there with you.

Although the title alludes to music in the Roman Catholic Church, much if not all of Mr. Day's observations about church music speak directly to the truly mediocre if not outright bad music being perpetrated on congregations everywhere. While Protestant congregations (through the more passive nature of their liturgies) might be used to functioning as an audience, the more traditionally liturgical Roman Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran congregations have begun to resemble (as a result of liturgical renewal) their Protestant brethren. That is, the new liturgies and hymns, despite claims to the contrary, have caused these congregations to see themselves as audiences, with their pastor as the chief entertainer.

Contemporary church architecture with churches built as "theaters in the round" helps to contribute to this metamorphosis. How many of us in the Roman Catholic, Episcopal, or Lutheran churches have listened to the pastor, at the beginning of the service, announce every little detail the audience would be treated to, as well as who the participating clergy/laity would be? Many such clergy sound hardly any different from "...the Tonight Show, starring Johnny Carson" and "...me, I'm Ed McMahon."

Mr. Day believes that much of the more dreadful music of the last thirty years grows more burdensome as clergy subconsciously yet increasingly, encourage their congregations to function as passive listeners attending a performance. Just the other day someone told me about his priest who, immediately after the processional

hymn booms out: "Good morning everybody!" He also enjoys interrupting the liturgy to force the congregation to "give the choir a hand for the great job they are doing at the moment."

Mr. Day does not pull his punches. One of the sacred cows which many churchman have endured, is the category of music coming under the heading of "Renewal." As one who frequently finds himself in situations where renewal music is played and sung, I'm often wondering why so many groups simply assume that everyone loves to sing renewal music? Mr. Day's answer, "ego renewal," will not please everyone. While appearing the perennial curmudgeon in these gatherings during which I simply refuse to sing, Mr. Day has helped me realize there really are good reasons for not wanting to sing this music. For instance, so much of renewal music asks the singer or congregation to assume the "voice of God" (e.g., "I will raise him up at the last day;" from "I am the Bread of Life"), or else asks them to pretend that they are something they are not: "And they'll know we are Christians by our love." Too many of these lyrics ask the singer to declare how perfectly and wonderfully he or she loves God every minute of every hour of ever day.

Some of us more sinful dinosaurs realize how we don't love God the way we ought. There's a profound difference in hymns which speak objectively about our love of God: "My God, how wonderful thou art," and songs which speak subjectively about how perfectly one's love of God is at every moment of every hour: "Jesus I adore you, lay my life before you; how I love you!" Mr. Day's point is that some of us, knowing that "there really is no health in us," simply cannot sing these lyrics without feeling hypocritical.

As a classically trained church musician, the author can relate how badly some organists have been treated in the interest of clergy who want to "dumb down" the Church's music. As rector of a parish church, I can attest to all kinds of stories about clergy firing their organists because they were not keen to play "what is relevant." And yet, on another but related level, is it not fascinating how the recording of serious church music is right now proceeding at an unheard of pace, whilst the church herself, at least from her most visible and influential comers, does not give such music the time of day — (no pun intended)?

Mr. Day's intention with his book however, goes far deeper than simply begging to set aside occasionally a musical genre which admittedly pleases what seems to be an ever-increasing number of people. His argument speaks to a certain hubris among contemporary church leaders, priests, and musicians, who would seem to want to remake the congregation in their own image by using their new liturgy and music. I strongly recommend this book to clergy and laity alike. #

(The Rev'd Frederick A. Buechner is the Rector of All Saints' Church, Thomasville, Georgia.)


AFTER forty years of earnest pursuit of the "contemporary" and "relevant," the words bring to mind bal

loon masses and clown masses and rave masses and middle aged priests in bell bottoms with long puffy sideburns, using media-invented words like "groovy," wanting to "rap" about "our bro Jesus," and preaching sermons on "Jesus the revolutionary" complete with exegesis of Bob Dylan's songs.

I am not making this up. I grew up in a New England college town.

One only has to pick up a book or magazine from the time to remember how very. . . silly the sixties were, and to know how very quickly people who tried so hard to be relevant and contemporary looked hopelessly outdated. As Ralph Inge, the dean of St. Paul's cathedral in London in the 1930s, famously said, he who marries the spirit of the age will find himself a widower in the next. Or: he who wears love beads in 1968 will look like a complete twit in 1973.

The sixties are a very crass example of a general principle: what needs and demands seem to us most pressing are often, in fact usually, the most superficial and transient.

Being courteous

We see something of this taste for "relevance" in the movement for liturgical revision, though the revisers speak with more caution and sophistication. They have not explained very well why the things they want to replace are irrelevant, nor why their products are so much more relevant, but their motive (or excuse) for their work is the irrelevance of their heritage and the need to replace it with something more likely to succeed in the modem world. Some, at least, have had a deeply evangelistic intent.

And they are on to something, even if they have taken the insight too far: being contemporary is simply an act of courtesy. It is the effort to make your guests comfortable and help them to feel at home. It is what a gracious person does: meaning, the person who has been touched by grace and wants to convey it to others.

But you are not expected to remake your home for your guests. It is not courtesy to skip saying blessings before meals because your guests are agnostics, nor is it courteous for them to expect you to. Nor are you allowed to remake your home to please your guests at the cost of making it no longer a home for those who have lived there. Trae courtesy is to bring others into

IN SEARCH OF THE RELEVANT AND

CONTEMPORARY by David Mills

your life, not in abandoning it; in helping them share who you are and what you have been given. It seems to me, from my travels, that traditional churches tend to fail in such courtesy, especially in giving hospitality to the stranger. They sometimes do not act as people who had been given a gift they must pass on, but act more as clubs to enter which knowledge of the secrets — such as the location of the nursery and the liturgical customs of the parish — is needed. One wonders how many have driven away angels unawares. A revival or traditional worship must be accompanied by a revival of traditional manners.

Expressing something deep

So let us by all means be courteous, but let us also understand that being courteous can mean the use of the liturgies of the Common Prayer tradition rather than their radical replacement.

And for a simple reason: the aspects of traditional liturgy most often dismissed as irrelevant are in fact deeply relevant and contemporary, because they express something deep in human nature. The simple principle to be remembered is: Almost everything we do in traditional worship, no matter how apparently old-fashioned and out-dated, is simply a natural human action and instinct, directed to the worship of God.

If understood, these instincts need only be expressed and understood to become "contemporary." A visitor to an Episcopal church may not want to kneel, because he does not kneel anywhere else in his world. It feels odd. Kneeling seems to him irrelevant to his life, and for us to expect it of him discourteous. (I choose this example because even revisers still expect people to kneel for confession — those who still believe in sin, that is.)

But he will come to kneel without a second thought when he understands that in kneeling to confess his sins he is only doing what he does in another way when he has to admit to his wife that he has forgot

ten her birthday. He hangs his head and shuffles his feet uneasily; in kneeling to confess our sins we are, so to speak, hanging our head before the God we' ve offended. They are both symbols appropriate to the subject, ways of showing and enacting our shame.

That understood, for him kneeling becomes not only perfectly natural, but deeply contemporary and relevant, because confession is deeply contemporary and relevant.

The language of worship

The elegant and elaborate language of traditional liturgy is one of the first targets of those who want more "contemporary" liturgy with a language closer to that which people speak. They object to "thee" and "thou" and "vouchsafe" and "meet and right so to do" and to the long complex sentences of the Prayer Book because no one uses these words or talks this way.

To which the answer is: well, yes and no. Or rather, for the reason just given: superficially yes, but more profoundly no.

First, we worship with beautiful language because we dress up everything important to us. Hell's Angels wear their best leather outfits to a wedding; the loutish teenager never out of blue jeans rents a tuxedo with a ruffled shirt for his senior prom; women carry flowers even to be married in a registry; bishops, even unbelieving bishops, dress on Easter like King Louis XIV.

So with worship. Anglicans use Prayer Book English to dress up our corporate encounter with the living God. In this sense, the language only matches the flowers on the altar or the vestments on the clergy and choir. It seems meet and right to do all we can to make our worship beautiful, and not just beautiful, but unusually so.

Second, we worship with such language because we are talking about God, whom we simply cannot describe in words. I cannot accurately describe even my daughter

SEARCH continued on page 8


SEARCH continued from page 4

Hannah to you, so that you would be sure of recognizing her should you meet her in a crowd of other four-year-old girls. If Hannah cannot be captured in words, God is of course infinitely less so.

Speaking about God in words is like trying to draw a circle with straight lines. You cannot do it, but you can come closer to doing it if you use more hues. With three lines you have only a triangle. With four you have only a square. But with five lines you have something recognizably circular. A circle it is not, it is1 nowhere near circular, but it is *like* a circle, it is circular enough for people who need to picture a circle.

The only way to speak at all adequately about God is to use as many words as possible. And we find that being done not just in the Book of Common Prayer but in Heaven itself. "Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever," sings the ecstatic heavenly cho-rus described in Revelation (7:12).

Third, we and the heavenly chorus speak this way of and to God not just because we have to, but because we want to. The use of Prayer Book language is not just a technical necessity, to express as well as we mortals can truths beyond words. It is the joyful language of the lover for the beloved.

APOSTASY continued from page 4

Similarly, the "reeducation camps" of the Soviet Union, in their pursuit of the "new Soviet man" redefined "love," "honesty," "patriotism," and a host of other words, so that one who spoke the "old Russian" required a translator to understand this "newspeak," as George Orwell called it. The Red Guard movement in Communist China attempted something similar.

What ties these regimes and our contemporary elites together is their desire to use their "highest good" of political power to recreate the human race. In such a pursuit there can be no objective reality, but only the "realities" imposed by the will of the powerful. Under this construction, if a medical elite wishes to eradicate or manipulate a disease for political purposes, they change the diagnostic manual and its definitions, rather than addressing the disease itself. "Wellness" and "sickness," then, are determined by the manual, and not by an extemal reality.

When we love someone, we love the details of his face and personality and actions, and love to recite them. We dwell on them even when we are alone. Think of a teenage girl describing her new boyfriend. "He's got these big blue eyes, and he's a brain, and he's on the basketball team, and he's really sweet, and . . . ," she says, and will go on and on until stopped, for the lover's joy is in the details.

Thus one cannot declare Prayer Book language irrelevant, unless one believes beauty, accuracy, and joy irrelevant. The argument against the traditional language must be made on other grounds, and indeed, to be honest, I think it clear that most revisers object to the doctrine of the Common Prayer tradition. They want to be "contemporary" in belief, not just in expression.

A final irony

There is, finally, an irony in the revisers' quest for contemporary liturgy: their belief in relevance has been used against them by those who want to be even more "contemporary" than they.

The principle they used to destroy the older liturgy has now been turned against them by people who do not want liturgy at all. It's isn't relevant, and it doesn't work, say the new revisers, who can often point to churches with over a thousand people on a Sunday as evidence.

If older liturgies drive modem Americans away from the church, so do newer lit-

When the elites of the mainline churches took up this new belief, the enduring, objective definitions of God and the Holy Scriptures had to be changed, so that God's will could not block their own. God's morality had to be redefined as "immorality," so the elites' traditional and orthodox opposition could be labeled and discredited as "immoral." God himself had to be changed from the transcendent and independent Trinity into the panthe-ists' malleable blob of "all that is" or into the panentheists' "world soul," for which, of course, only the politicized elites can speak.

Most important of all, since most people learn their theology from hymns and prayers, hymnals and worship books had to be revised in the new way. Not only the elites pushed for this revision. Those whose minds had been captured by the new way of thinking also demanded hymns and prayers that "spoke in their language," since the older, objective religious language called into question their new beliefs and made them uncomfortable. New "translations" of the Scriptures also protected the new mindset

urgies. To the unchurched. Rite 11 looks as strange as 1928. "It is right and good to give him thanks and praise" looks as peculiar, and as irrelevant, as "It is meet and right so to do."

Every argument the old revisers can (rightly) make against the new revisers is an argument not only for Rite II but for the Prayer Book as well. The argument for a common liturgy, or an historic liturgy transcending temporary fads and enthusiasms, or an ordered and regular liturgy following the Church year, or one with a precise and stylized language (even the revisers do not want a liturgy written as most people actually speak — "It's, like, God, that, you know, we've messed up, like . . ."), or a liturgy repeated often enough to be memorized, is as much an argument for the Common Prayer tradition as for the modem alternatives.

And this for the simple reason that in the things that matter at all time and in all places, in the things that are, if you will, relevant to etemity, it is more contemporary and relevant than anything proposed to replace it. "fr

David Mills is director of publishing at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry and editor of The Evangelical Catholic, the theological journal of the Episcopal Synod of America. His descriptions of kneeling and liturgical language were adapted from a series he wrote for Mandate several years ago.

from ancient truths and beliefs.

Something to ponder Thus, in the Episcopal Church the three

books that represented the greatest obstacles to the new agenda were the 1940 Hymnal, the historic Book of Common Prayer (1549-1928), and the King James Version of the Bible. As a rale of thumb, those Episcopalians who have been separated from these books and have used their replacements the longest are also the most submissive to the new religion. The reverse is trae as well. Those who have continued to worship according to the traditional forms tend to continue to think in the old vocabulary of objective meaning flowing from the reality of a transcendent and holy God. They are also the least likely to conform to the political will of the new Episcopalian elite. +

(Fr. Kim is both a retired Colonel and a retired Rector. He is very active in CCLEC (Concerned Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal Church.)


IN WHAT DOES THE "COMMON" CONSIST?

Peter Toon

Until the 1960's, to speak of "common prayer" in the Anglican world was to refer to actual texts which were printed within a book and used by all congregations (in which many

folks knew them by heart). So at the parish, diocesan, provincial and national level there was a general uniformity in the verbal content of worship, as people used "that most excellent liturgy,"— "The Book of Common Prayer." Of course, music, ceremonial and churchmanship differed, but there was real meaning to the expression, "common prayer" for all used the same basic texts for public worship.

Since the arrival of the 1979 prayer book of the Episcopal Church, "common prayer" has come to mean for most Episcopa-lians using a selection from the varied assortment of services contained in this book. In fact, though it bears the name, "The Book of Common Prayer," it is totally different in structure and content from all previous books (the editions of 1662, 1789,1892 & 1928) of this name in the American Church.

A common structure

What is "common" in this 1979 prayer book is a common structure to the services. For example, the Rite One and Rite Two services for "the Holy Eucharist" though containing great variety of doctrine and words do have one thing in common — their structure. The traditional Rite One presses material from the classic Book of Common Prayer into the mould of the new structure which is a kind of liturgical sandwich — ministry of the Word, passing of the Peace, ministry of the Sacrament. Further, because of the commitment to "the fourfold action of the Eucharist,." learned from Dom Gregory Dix, the physical "breaking of the bread" is kept until after the end of the Eucharistic Prayer in both Rite One and Two of the 1979 book (cf. the rubrics of the classic B.C.P. which call for the breaking when the words of Jesus are recited — B.C.P. 1928 p.80).

In the newer rites (which increasingly use inclusive language for the Deity) from the Standing Liturgical Commission, the same view of "common" is found. "Common Prayer" means that all congregations use services which have the same basic stracture. However, what is held to be the common structure is reduced to an absolutely bare minimum in the newer rites. The projection for the future from liturgical experts is that Episcopalians will be united in "worship" via a common structure (Word, Passing of the Peace, Sacrament) but not by a common verbal or ceremonial or doctrinal content.

Perhaps after three decades of experimentation and memory loss concerning the Anglican Way, a growing number of Episcopalians feel the need not only for a common structure and core but also for a common form of words — words of quality and power. Maybe, after all, a truly "Common Prayer" has a future as a growing number of people begin to express its desire for roots and depth and purpose in church worship.

Common Texts of Excellence

Those who went before us in the Anglican Way were confi

dent in the depth and quality of the Cranmerian English Common Prayer, used since 1549. Testimonies to this confidence abound in English literature.

For example in 1681 William Beveridge declared:

Whatsoever good things we hear only once, or now and then, though, perhaps, upon the hearing of them, they may swim for a while in our brains, yet seldom do they sink down into our hearts, so as to move and sway the affections, as it is necessary they should do, in order to our being edified by them.

Whereas, by a set form of public devotions rightly composed, we are continually put in mind of all things necessary for us to know or do; so that it is always done by the same words and expressions, which, by their constant use, will imprint the things themselves so firmly in our minds, that it will be no easy matter to obliterate or raze them out...

Having the form continually in my mind, being thoroughly acquainted with it, fully approving of everything in it, and always knowing beforehand what will come next, I have nothing else to do, whilst the words are sounding in my ears, but to move my heart and affections suitably to them, to raise up my desires of those good things which are prayed for, to fix my mind wholly upon God, whilst I am praising of Him, and so to employ, quicken, and lift up my whole soul in performing my devotions to Him.

(A Sermon on the Excellency of the Common Prayer)

And as for the importance of the daily chanting/singing of the Psalms, which is a central feature of Common Prayer, the saintly Pope Gregory the Great had this to say:

If...the singing of the psalmody rings out from the innermost reaches of the heart, the omnipotent Lord finds a way, through this singing, into the heart that He might pour the mysteries of prophecy or the grace of remorse into this attentively listening organ. For it is written: "A song of praise honors me, and this is the way on which I wish to show him the salvation of God" (Ps. 50:23). For the Latin, salutare, salvation, means Jesus in Hebrew. Hence in the song of praise we gain access to where Jesus can reveal Himself, for if remorse is poured out through the singing of psalms, then a way to the heart emerges in us at the end of which we reach Jesus.

(Homilies on Ezekiel, 1:15)

Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Few who really enter into the discipline of Common Prayer in the Anglican Way find it disappointing. Virtually all the rejection of it today in the Episcopal Church, in favor of claimed variety and "freedom" and "celebration" in so-called "contemporary worship," comes from people who have never known either the joy or rigor of Common Prayer. #


THE CHRISTIAN MIND: LEONARDO DA VINCI

AND COMMON PRAYER Dr. Michael Carreker

Toward the end of his life, Leonardo da Vinci wrote this maxim in his notebook. "Think carefully about

the end. Consider first the end." This was not for him a new revelation. It characterized the way he approached both his craft and his research. Everything Leonardo thought about was subjected to the idea of cause and purpose and goal, from the ingredients he mixed for painting to the best hydraulic functions of a canal. "Consider first the end."

The Last Supper The Last Supper offers us an exquisite

paradigm of how Leonardo brought to bear this idea in the art of painting itself. The first sketches of it are found in his notebook on geometry. The entire painting possesses a depth and precision that center at the heart of Jesus. The upper room, itself of geometrical configuration, is the setting through which one views, as it were from within, the landscape behind and outside. In this view, nature also is a part of the whole, which has its horizon, at the head of Christ. To the right and to the left is the fellowship of the Apostles who have just heard of the imminent betrayal of Jesus by one of them. And so, along with the focus of etemal reason in the mathematical symmetry of the room, and the purview of nature outside, is the drama of human emotion in the betrayal of the good, in the midst of the communion of the apostolic brethren uniquely portrayed, placed again relative to the central figure of Jesus.

For this Leonardo uses almost all his resources: painting, architecture, mathematics, anatomy, physiognomy, and brings them together in a religious sensibility that is profound and unparalleled. This particular work is, as he described the art of painting, "silent poetry." The "end" of the whole work is seen at the center where Jesus unites universal and particular, the mathematical and the natural, sorrow and charity.

The beginning and the end The reason why Leonardo, "il divino"

as the great art historion Vasari called him,

could articulate such a synthesis of trath and beauty is because he thought carefully about the "end." He knew the connection between understanding and enjoyment. Cause and effect were not for him, as for us, merely scientific in our truncated sense of the word, and certainly not a phenomenon of sociobi-ology. Leonardo believed all things were known from a single spiritual perspective, as he wrote in his Treatise on Painting: "For in trath great love is bom of great knowledge of the thing loved, and if you did not know it, you could not love it, or love it but little." With this view, Leonardo brought the Christian mind to bear upon the natural world in a new and glorious way.

For Anglicans, this form of the Christian mind, which Leonardo inherited and developed, is actually familiar to us in the Book of Common Prayer. All the spiritual conditions of man, expressed by sculptors and painters and architects in their mediums of plastic or visual art are set forth in the theological poetry of prayer. As da Vinci's Last Supper draws together the universal and particular, the mathematical and the natural, sorrow and charity, into the person of Jesus, so the Book of Common Prayer unites the Word of God written, the vicissitudes of the human heart, and the wisdom ofthe Spirit in the Church into a subllime unity, "...great love is bom of great knowledge of the thing loved..." The folly of continuous revision

It is no wonder, really, that the Episcopal church persists in its folly of prayer-book revision. In the words of Isaiah: "The whole head is sick and the whole heart faint." There is an obscurity of knowledge, and tittle love — at least of divine things.

Last July in Philadelphia, a resolution was passed calling for a change in the Canons, which would allow the General Convention to authorize "supplemental liturgies" (rather than provide experimental liturgies which can only be used with the Bishop's permission.)

By the year 2012 this process of establishing authorized supplemental liturgies would finally be complete. The result would

mean two parallel and contradictory liturgies, the 1979 and whatever the Standing Liturgical Commission can squeeze out of its abstracted and dried-up imagination. We would be left with a spiritual schizophrenia and duplicity of heart, which can hardly be called Christian.

When will it ever end? Consider this first. Beginning in the

late sixties and ending with the year 2012 (if it should actually cease then), trial liturgies have been foisted upon the faithful of the Church for an entire generation. The end and the means are inherently flawed. When will anyone recognize that the whole thing has failed miserably?

Not one shred of these "revisions" has accomplished what true vision is and must be. The hearts ofthe faithful have not been captured, broken, and filled with the truth and love of Jesus. For Leonardo, for the Christian mind,"great love is bom of great knowledge of the thing loved." Apprehension and desire follow one upon the other in proportion, like the motions of the angels in Dante's Paradise, contemplating and adoring God. The latest machination of the General Convention produces another gestation, perfidious and pernicious, not love bom of knowledge, but a thing ill-conceived, miscarried, and still-bom of a vain and cold heart

A paradigm of Christian vision

The Last Supper of Leonardo is a paradigm of Christian vision. The whole drama of creation and redemption cohere in Christ the focal mark. Such has always been, and shall always be, the articulation of the Christian mind in its words and works. Our Book of Common Prayer stands in the tradition of this understanding, and anyone who uses it faithfully cannot but see Christ at the center, our only Mediator and Advocate. We shall continue to pray as he taught us, because he is the only begotten of the Father, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

Leonardo's maxim may be unknown by the liturgists of our Church, but the Christian tradition knows it full well, and all Christians understand intuitively: "Think carefully about the end. Consider first the end." #

Fr. Michael L. Carreker is the associate rector of St. John's Church, Savannah, Georgia. This piece first appeared in the parish paper.


PECUSA, INC. AND THE DFMS: UNFOLDING DRAMi*

One of the final acts ofthe outgoing Presiding Bishop, Edmond Browning, in mid-December was to seek to close down a new organization which daringly called itself, PECUSA, Inc. (The Protestant Episcopal Church USA). It had been formed by Bishop Wantland and a few others as a way to control the use of the traditional name of the Church. However, instead of closing down, the Board of PECUSA, Inc. took steps to enlarge itself on December 17 at a meeting in Jacksonville. Ten days later after being barraged by criticism from all over the Episcopal Church, the founder issued the following public statement, which explains what PECUSA, Inc. is all about.

A Statement made by Bishop William C. Wantland of Eau Claire on December 27, 1997.

For a number of years, there has been a real feeling on the part of many bishops, clergy and laity in the Church that nationally, the Church has been moving away from the foundations of the Faith we have all embraced. In the last twenty years, a third of Episcopalians have left the Church. Some dioceses have seen declines of 40%. At the same time, previously held positions of virtual universal acceptance have been changed or even rejected. Already, at least five dioceses have agreed to the blessing of same-sex unions. More are ordaining practicing homosexuals, in spite of condemnation by the official resolutions and policies of the Church. Those engaged in these practices are not even considered as in error, much less in violation of the Faith.

In the wake of all this upheaval, various groups have come into being. Some have been centered on a primary issue, such as women's ordinations (ECM, ESA), or revisions of the Prayer Book (Prayer Book Society). Others are more concerned with a broader range of issues that threaten to divide the Church (Episcopalians United, Concerned Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal Church, American Anglican Council, First Promise).

Further, many have actually left the Church to form other bodies, such as the Anglican Catholic Church, United Episcopal Church, American Episcopal Church, Anglican Church in America, and others. In addition to clergy and laity leaving the Episcopal Church for the "Continuing Church," a number of clergy and laity have joined the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

For a number of years, I have been deeply concerned for both the unity of the Church and the wholeness of its Faith. Could there be a way to give traditional Episcopalians a place to stand within the Church? Could there be a way to allow people to retain the Faith of their Fathers (and Mothers) ? Most Episcopalians do not want to leave the Church they know and love, but they don't want the revisions to the Faith which seem

more and more to be the rale of the day. A little over two years ago, several

clergy and laity were discussing how we might keep a place in the Church for those who were feeling more and more disenfranchised. We discovered several things. The first was the fact that the National Church had begun to remove from the Church Constitution and the Book of Common Prayer all references to the old title "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America," and substituting instead the new name "The Episcopal Church." That change was virtually completed by the end of 1979. The second was that the official incorporation of the Church was under the name of "The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America."

If the Faith was to be preserved, if the people in the pew (and at the altar) were to have a place to stand within the Church, without leaving, that place should be identified, not with the "Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society" of the Episcopal Church Center in New York, nor even with the revised name, "The Episcopal Church." As the old name was abandoned, so the old Faith has been abandoned. Recovery of the old name would be directly related to conservation of the old Faith.

On that basis, it was determined to incorporate that name, "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America," so that name could be preserved for those who embrace the "Faith once delivered to the Saints," the Faith and Order that has been the mainstay of Episcopalians for almost 400 years in this country. With the name incorporated, Trustees could be chosen to hold the Faith in Trust, and the heritage of the Church in trust. This was seen as an umbrella for orthodox individuals, organi- Bishop Wantland

zations and parishes. A Declaration was drawn up which affirms that Faith in Trust...

Having estabhshed the Trustees of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Inc., about a year and a half ago, it was also felt that the corporate stracture should be authorized to function in the various States of the Union. As that process was being completed, it was then felt that the Trustees should make a public statement of this umbrella, so that individuals and groups desiring to do so could associate with the umbrella, using the Declaration as the reference of unity. As we were beginning to take this action (I had mailed out information to the clergy of the Diocese of Eau Claire, and was beginning to share information with interested laity), the Presiding Bishop became aware of what we were doing. While we had not advised him, it was a matter of public record, and in the process of becoming more public.

His immediate reaction was one of anger, and misunderstanding. He called me on December 10, alleging that the Trustees were planning schism, and were trying to steal the name of the Church. He threatened publicity to "destroy our ministry," and possible suits, as well. He demanded that the corporate stracture, just then in place to be used, be dissolved within 48 hours. I tried to explain to him that I could not make any unilateral decision for the Trustees, and that even if I could, or if the Trustees were willing to do so, it could not be accomplished that quickly. Legal action could take up to 60 days.

Of course, the Trustees did NOT intend to leave the Church or split it. This was made clear to him, but he would not hear of it. We have been concemed, however, with the recent threats by Primates of Anglican Churches in Africa, Asia and elsewhere to seek the ouster of the American Church from the Anglican Communion. In view of these very real threats, we were concemed to be sure that there remained in this country an Anglican Church still associated with the rest of the Anglican Communion. When it became obvious that we could not get the Trust-

DRAMA continued on page 12


DRAMA continued from page 11

ees together within the time given, the Presiding Bishop did agree to allow a meeting to take place the next week to consider his demands.

The Trustees met on December 17, 1997, and seriously considered what the Presiding Bishop had said. In faimess, I must say that the corporate charter was copied from the more than 30 year old charter of the Diocese of Eau Claire, and some of the language was not appropriate to what we were about. The Trustees were fully willing to amend the Articles of Incorporation to make it crystal clear that we were not laying any claim to the programs or funds of 815. However, since thousands had already accepted the umbrella organization, it would be impossible to comply with the demand to dismantle the organization.

The purposes of that umbrella, as expressed in the Articles of Incorporation, are:

To engage exclusively in religious, educational and charitable activities. Further, it shall exercise a stewardship in the Gospel to insure that there always remains in the United States a Church which "is a constituent member of the

Anglican Communion . . . upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer" (Preamble to the Constitution).

As stated to the Presiding Bishop, "the Trastees are not leaving the Church." It is not the intention to split the Church, but to give a solid place for orthodox Episcopalians to stand together. It is also not the intention of the Trastees to confuse this structure with the National structure, with the Presiding Bishop's office, or the Episcopal Church Center in New York. All of this was communicated to him. We have also communicated with the Presiding Bishop-elect.

The Trustees include Bishops John-David Schofield and Alex Dickson, as well as myself. In addition, outstanding Church leaders, such as Fr. Jon Shuler of NAMS, Fr. Chuck Murphy of First Promise, Fr. Larry Hall, Rector of St. John the Divine in Houston (one of the largest parishes in the American Church) and Dr. John Rodgers, retired Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, are serving. Serving locally in Wisconsin are Canon Larry Rowe and Eunice Muenzberg.

Sure enough, the publicity barrage threatens to destroy our ministry. Some of it is totally out of touch with reality, such as claims that this is a movement to divide the Church over the ordination of women.

A majority of the Trustees favor the ordinat ion of women, and that is not an issue.

Nonetheless, I have been attacked for my connection with the Episcopal Synod of America,

_ _ _ ^ ^ _ and several bishops

Fr. Shuler ^ w / . i t t e n t 0

claim this as an ESA plot. One report even claimed that this was an announced "formal split," even though we have all made it abundantly clear that it is not.

Other reports, related to the Presiding Bishop's statement, imply that it is simply a scheme to get money from unsuspecting people. While we have indicated that gifts can be given that are tax-deductible, no real request for funds has been made yet. One report from 815 even attacked me for using my home address rather than the diocesan address, the implication being that this was some shady operation. It was a conscious decision on my part to use my office at home (where my computer, FAX and personal communication system is) rather than involve the diocesan office....

A word of caution from a concerned churchman.

It concems me that the proponents of PECUSA, Inc. appear to have neglected any consideration of why the Episcopal Church was never incorporated in this way before. I would like to suggest for your consideration that the reasons are more complicated than a simple "oversight" on the part of the bureaucrats at 815 2nd Ave, New York City.

When the Protestant Episcopal Church was formed, it was established as a communion of the Churches in the various states. It wasn't the Episcopal Church "of the United States of America," which suggests a single, centralized entity. It was the Church "in the United States of America." Under this second, and original constraction, the Episcopal Church was not incorporated because that would have suggested, if not enforced, the notion that a "national church organization" called the several Churches into being or legitimized them in some way. Rather, the original understanding was that the several Churches, through their spiritual communion and their covenants of order (the Constitution and the Canons) empowered certain officers and entities to act on behalf of the whole, where individual action would not be effective or efficient.

One such entity was the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protes

tant Episcopal Church. It was " o f the Church to serve the Church, but not to rule it. It drew its legitimacy from its commission from the several churches meeting in General Convention.

The DFMS has only lately been perverted into the master rather than the servant of the Church. There simply has been no solid constitutional basis for the claims of authority made by either General Convention or the offices at 815 2nd Ave., now styling themselves "the national Church." I suspect that "815" has not incorporated as PECUSA, Inc. or as ECUSA, Inc. primarily to avoid drawing attention to the fact that it has no authority to do so.

While the effort of Bishop Wantland and others to incorporate as PECUSA, Inc. may draw attention to this lack of authority, and to the fact that this Church is a communion of dioceses rather than a centralized "national church", I fear that they have only repeated the error of the liberals in ignoring the history and true nature of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. They appear to be trying to fight a liberal national church with a less-liberal national church of their own.

In any case, if PECUSA, Inc. succeeds in establishing itself, the true Church in this country will be harmed. Those traditionalists who embrace what is essentially a cor-poratist counter-action will find themselves in a much more difficult position when it comes time to assert the spiritual and cov-enantal nature of the American Church, as opposed to its being just another centralized American denomination.

This Church was built, on purpose and on Scriptural and historic grounds, from the bottom up. It was not incorporated as a single entity because it was never meant to be such. The new PECUSA, Inc., however well-meaning, jeopardizes the future of this Church by transforming its structure into exactly what the enemies of the Faith have claimed it to be for their own benefit. Fighting bureaucracy with bureaucracy will never work. +

(The Prayer Book Society is also concerned that a body claiming the name of the historic Anglican Church in America, PECUSA, is wholly attached to the 1979 prayer book, accepts the ordination of women and has not openly committed itself to the right of Episcopalians to use with freedom and without restrictions the classic Book of Common Prayer of that Church. Dr. Toon has asked the Board of PECUSA Inc. to issue a statement containing such a full commitment to the use in freedom ofthe 1928 BCP.)


Debate about THE COMMON PRAYER in Cyberspace

O n January 2 1998, Dr. Toon posted the following message in cyberspace to seek to get people to comment. They did and below are his postings with edited versions of some of

the responses.

WHY OH WHY OH WHY?

At the risk of testing the patience of some, I raise again the question which is raised wherever 1 travel in Britain and Canada and USA:

WHY IS IT THAT IN ALL RECENT ATTEMPTS TO INITIATE RENEWAL WITHIN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN AMERICA THERE HAS BEEN AND REMAINS on the one hand A MAJOR RESISTANCE TO BEING IDENTIFIED WITH THE CLASSIC COMMON PRAYER TRADITION AND CATECHISM OF THE ANGLICAN WAY (1549-1928), and on the other hand, A DELIBERATE INTENTION TO IDENTIFY ONLY WITH THE 1979 PRAYER BOOK AND ITS CATECHISM ["Outline of Faith"]?

Apparently, it never occurred to the founders of the PECUSA Inc. (Bishop Wantland et al), or to the creators of the American Anglican Council (Bishop Stanton et al), to include in their statements of faith a clear and unambiguous identification with the worship and doctrine of the Anglican Way in her classic Book of Common Prayer. Apparently they are so much apart of the post 1970's scene that they feel and see no need to relate clearly and unambiguously to the traditional roots and practice of the Anglican Way. The same spirit of reluctance is there also in the documents of the First Promise movement (of rectors of evangelical parishes).

When asked to remedy this, there is hesitancy and opposition. WHY?

At the foundation in 1989 ofthe Episcopal Synod of America, there was a small group (Bishop Wantland, Dean Kriss et. al) who sought to identify the Synod only with the 1979 prayer book. They lost in terms of the constitution but it has been claimed that they triumphed in terms of the practice of most ofthe E.S.A. bishops.

The deep habitual resistance to the availability of the classic Common Prayer, and to its use by all who wish to do so, seems to point to something of serious importance, something perhaps which is part of the disease of the post 1960's Episcopal Church, a disease in which in varying degrees we all share.

If there was nothing of moment involved in this resistance, then the services ofthe classic BCP would be treated. I suggest, as further options adding to the variety of rites in the 1979 prayer book and they would be automatically included or assumed in constitutions and statements of faith.

The classic Prayer Book is allowed, as it were, to compete freely for use in Canada and England but not in the USA? Why is this? Why especially do many who wish to be orthodox feel the need to identify only with the 1979 book of alternative services and bypass or reject the classic Common Prayer Tradition ? Has something happened to or in the Anglican Way of America which has not happened elsewhere in the Anglican Communion and which is causing this apparent attempt to forget the existence ofthe classic and basic Common Prayer, with its call to the ordered godly life?

Why are so-called orthodox bishops particularly resistant to the free use of the classic Common Prayer? Why do they not encourage its use to test the market?

Would someone who knows the answer please provide it?

A professor of English offered an answer to "Why" in terms of a felt need for updated language:

The priests and lay people who profess orthodoxy but who insist on using the '79 book want this book simply because they like its updated language. They prefer the NTV to the KJV of the Bible. They prefer "You are the man!" to "Thou art the man." To them, the whole prayer book issue comes down to a question of whether to pray in modem English or Elizabethan English, and they prefer the former. Either they are unaware of the doctrinal differences between the '79 book and the '28 BCP or they choose to ignore them. (And this is why—/ would sorrowfully argue—there can never be any unity among the church conservatives unless the '28 BCP is revised and its language made more contemporary.) That the classic Prayer Book is allowed to compete with the new book in England and in Canada but not in America is no doubt to be explained by the fact that America is inhabited by Americans.

One of the bishops who is on the Board of the PECUSA Inc. offered this reason why only one Prayer Book is to be in use at one time and this means the sole use of the 1979 book:

/ can only speak for myself to say that the issue of Prayer Book has not been addressed in regard to PECUSA Inc. Part of the problem has been that since 1552, each succeeding Prayer Book has supplanted the previous one. The idea of allowing previous Books to be used is a novel one for the last part of this century. That doesn 't mean it can't be done, but it is currently not authorized.

When he was told that the use of the 1892 BCP continued in the Church long after the publication ofthe 1928 BCP and seemingly without any problem, the same bishop replied:

/ appreciate your references to those allowed to use the older BCP when a newer one was adopted. However, the fact is that Article X ofthe Constitution and the provisions of Title II ofthe Canons have always required use of the current BCP, regardless ofthe willingness of many not to enforce those provisions. The basis for this was the action previously in England which specifically (by Act of Parliament) required use ofthe current BCP, whatever edition it happened to be. In fact, there is a provision in Title II (last used by GC in 1982), requiring bishops to advice their dioceses that any use of liturgy other than the current BCP (or authorized Trial Rites) is not permitted.

The Bishop's point is well taken, but there is a legitimate tradition in America of having interpreted Article X's words "...as now established or hereafter amended by the authority of this Church" to mean that the use of previous editions of what was, at least until 1979, the same book was lawful and constituted no challenge to lawful authority.

3One person wrote a long piece, seeking to be humorous, using "thee" and "thou" in a crude way in order to seek to show how stupid he believes it is for modem people to use an

WHY continued on page 14


WHY continued from page 13

ancient English text. Here are extracts from it:

/ canst not for others speaketh, but as for me, the answer is simple. No longer speaketh I that way and I desireth not so to do nor desireth I to require others thusly to speak. Hast thou not taken notice to the manner in which this nation, of a multiplicity of cultures, speakest? Whist ye not that God is not a 16th Century A.D. Englishman?

Hast thou ever considered the possibility that some of us can "...relate clearly and unambiguously to the traditional roots and practice of the Anglican Way..." with the 1979 BCP? Hath it ever occurred to thee that thou art wrong in this and many other of thine accusations?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. For me the 1979 BCP ain't broke and even if it were broken, the fix would absolutely not be the 1928 BCP.

Why, oh why, oh why insisteth thee that the 1979 BCP is a "... book of alternative services..." when it is and has been the "Book of Common Prayer?" Is not that a bit "revisionist?"

Hads 't thou not long ago worneth me to an absolute frazzle with thy constant haranguing and thy constant accusations of heresy I woulds't yet even now be in favor of permitting the use ofthe 1928 Alternative Service Book by those who favoreth worshipping in other tongues. Nevertheless thou hast beaten me down as thou hast accuseth me and others who shareth disdain for the archaic worship language and who tireth, along with me, of thy cruel and heartless and unthinking and uncaring attacks on the veracity,the orthodoxy and the bona fides of any and all those whomsoever disagreeth with thee. I hasteneth to add that thou'rt not satisfied with permission for use but thou insisteth on reinstating the 1928 BCP as "THE Book of Common Prayer," and the 1979 BCP as an "Alternative Service Book" in which event, methinks, thou wouldst then mount a campaign to prohibit or limit the use of the "1979 ASB" because "...so-called orthodox..." people were using it.

Dr. Toon, methinks the horse is dead. Stop beating it!

4 Another person, who has only been an Episcopalian for two decades and has no memory of the use of the classic Book of Common Prayer, offered this explanation of why there is resistance to its use:

In response to Dr. Toon's primary "why " question concerning the lack of commitment to the 1928 BCP, my sense is that most Episcopalians (conservative or otherwise) perceive arguments for the 1928 BCP as a train that has already left the station. Conservatives are not willing to fight for it because other issues are seen as more pressing. The "middle " (whatever that is) and the left associate 1928 BCP with "splinter groups" (a term 1 strongly dislike). I think the response is political and not theological.

I also have to state that I came into the Episcopal Church in 1989. Part of that conversion involved spending time with the 1979 book, praying with it, and studying it. It was (and still is) the standard 1 am used to. I think that is part of the problem, too. I've never been in a parish that used Rite I well or consistently, let alone the 1928 book. It's alien to me.

It was only after 1 had been in the church for a few years that I actually picked up the 1928 book and examined it. It is very different from the 1979 book. (!) What I have found out subse

quently is that all of the books up to and including the 1928 BCP had more in common than our 1979 book. I've also found out that the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide use some version ofthe 1662 English book.

Wouldn 'ta tactic be to claim solidarity with other Anglicans worldwide on liturgy like we have on human sexuality? Oh, but we believe the train has already left the station here in the US...

A traditional priest working in the Old South made the point that the issue involves much more than the updating of

W ' language:

/ remain unconvinced that the dialect of English used in the traditional Prayer Book is the "problem." My Southern Baptist neighbors cheerfully read the King James Version of the Bible, and do so with pleasure, even though the syntax and vocabulary found there are rather more difficult than Cranmer's.

Neither do I think that there is some more "modem" dialect of English that will provide all comers with instant comprehension. I have taught freshman college writing and introductory literature off and on for twenty-five years, and I have found that my students have just as much trouble reading the editorial page in their newspapers or the short declarative sentences of Hemingway with understanding as they do when they encounter the classics of the Western canon. To those who have not been taught to read and to think, the dialect used in any piece of writing, including the 1979 book, is neither a great help nor a great hindrance.

If students become interested in the subject matter, and it is opened to them intelligently, they will tackle almost anything and generally succeed. Some of my students in Alabama used to bring dates to our classes on literature as dense as the Iliad and Hamlet. One mom brought her son to an ethics class on Aristotle, because she was trying to get him interested in going to college.

The real issue, then, isn't the language ofthe traditional Prayer Book vs. the language of the 1979 book, nor is it a conflict between the 1928 BCP and the 1979 hook. The real issue is content, and the effort to change the substance of the faith of the Church by replacing the traditional Prayer Book and its contents with a different book and different contents.

I suppose from some of the comments that I've read here in cyberspace that some of us really are unfamiliar with the theological debates prior to and following the imposition of the 1979 hook, and that some of us have been blissfully spared any knowledge ofthe bullying and coercion used against those who simply wished to remain in the Episcopal Church and to use her traditional liturgy. Parishes have been closed, property confiscated, and ministers deposed for their continued use of 1928. Much of the 1980s was given over to an outright witchhunt directed against traditionalists.

The irony is that the Prayer Book Society, and those associated with it who continue to ask only for a principled debate of the theological issues and who continue to search for some principled ground of fellowship with those who use the 1979 book, should be accused of "hate mongering" and "nagging." Despite real injuries received, even if many are now forgotten, these people have loyally refused to give up on their fellow

WHY continued on page 15


Many ask, "What happened to Mom-ing Prayer?" So a couple of years ago the Toronto branch of the

Prayer Book Society of Canada commissioned a study. It is now available,entitled What Happened to Morning Prayer? The Service of the Word as a Principal Sunday Liturgy. It is co-authored by Dr. Alan Hayes of Wycliffe College, Toronto, and by Dr. John Webster of Oxford University, England, and has been published by Wycliffe College, Toronto.

It is not the authors' intent to advocate a return to infrequent Communion, as was the practice of earlier generations. Rather, their aim is to challenge the uncritical adoption of services of the Eucharist as the normative form of Sunday worship to the exclusion of all others. In the first part. Dr. Hayes considers how this state of affairs came about, and re-visits the original rationale for a weekly parish communion. In the second part, Dr. Webster offers a theological argument for a service of the Word as a principal act of Sunday worship, complementary to but not in competition with the regular celebration of the Eucharist.

Following is an excerpt from the authors' introduction to the book:

"In most congregations of the Anglican Church of Canada today, the principal worship of the week is the Sunday morning parish communion ... Because this pattem is so widespread, and because a diminishing number of Anglicans remember anything else, it often feels like an age-old tradition.

"But weekly parish communion was almost unknown until the 1930's, and remained a minority observance until the 1960's or 1970's. Before the 1880's the usual Sunday service for most Anglicans was Moming Prayer, litany and antecommunion, ending with gospel, sermon and concluding prayers. Perhaps once a month Holy Communion was added, but attendance was typically light. The congregational hymn between antecommunion and communion was

THE "MORNING

PRAYER PROJECT"

called the Judas hymn, since so many of the worshippers slipped out of the church while it was being sung! In the 1880's, a trend began towards shortening Anglican services; typically the service three Sundays a month was now simply Moming Prayer (but enlarged to include sermon and offertory), and on the fourth Sunday it was Holy Communion. In many churches, if there was a fifth Sunday, the litany would be read. Anglo-Catholic parishes, however, followed a different pattem; typically they celebrated the sung eucharist at an 11:00 Sunday service, but few if any communicants came forward. Those few who did want to receive communion came to an early-morning low mass. Evangelicals were a little different too; they generally favoured Sunday evening services.

"From about 1950 to 1980 most Anglican churches changed their major Sunday worship from a service of the word to parish communion — or, in the case ofAnglo-Catholic parishes, from a late-morning mass without communicants to a mid-morning parish communion. This transformation of the worship patterns and devotional habits of a generation was an early fruit of what is called the Liturgical Movement, an ecumenical and international network of organizations and religious leaders which promoted changes in parish worship with a view to Christian renewal.

"...It is timely, for those of us in the generation which has inherited parish communion as normative Anglican practice, to take

The launch of the Morning Prayer Project. Left to right: Tim and Margaret Pellew, who underwrote the entire effort; Diana Verseghy, the President of the PBSC Toronto Branch; Drs. John Webster and Alan Hayes, the two authors; Dr. Michael Pountney, the Principal of Wycliffe College; and Charles Fenton, Past President of the PBSC Toronto Branch and leader of the project.

a step back to evaluate it. The Liturgical Movement in the form that the twentieth century has known it is, by various accounts, either in its final phases or in the process of significant evolution, and some of its earlier achievements are beginning to look less like innovations and more like relics of an earlier era. Possibly the idea that Sunday parish communion is an unalterable fixture is one which corresponded well with a somewhat earlier scholarship, culture and liturgical vision, but is not well suited to the twenty-first century." +

[Copies of the booklet can be ordered from the PBSC Toronto branch by writing to the branch president, Dr. Diana Verseghy, at 16 Capilano Court, Concord, Ontario, L4K 1L2, Canada (e-mail [email protected]). The cost is $2.00 per copy (Canadian: roughly $1-50 U.S.), plus postage. Discounts are available for bulk orders.

The American Prayer Book Society commends this booklet and urges its supporters to obtain a copy for themselves and their clergy.]

WHY continued from page 14

Episcopalians or simply to anathematize an institution that has done them harm.

So, I really don't think that "language " is the contentious issue, but the system of liturgical and spiritual apartheid that has grown up in the Episcopal Church. Those who have not suffered from it yet may wonder what all the fuss is about, but so then did the average Boer in South Africa, who couldn't see what harm their apartheid was causing and couldn 't figure out why that Mandela fellow kept bothering everybody.

6 A young priest who has recently gone to his first parish sent into cyberspace this message, which represents a small, but growing consensus amongst younger (X generation) Episcopalians.

/ became an Episcopalian in a Rite II (Integrity) parish in Philadelphia and mocked the few Rite I Masses I ever attended (in Lent at a neighboring parish). It was only after I found a 1928 BCP in the closet did I start to compare the two and found that the 1928 was more theologically precise. It took me less time to find out what those strange

words meant in the 28/Rite than it did to try to correct something like the Creed in Rite 11.... which does not match the Greek or Latin forms ofthe Nicene Creed. Yes, finding out what those things meant took a little time, but Theological Correctness is a virtue. There is no virtue in making something accessible to the unchurched, but not teaching them the fulness of the faith by what is being prayed. I have no beef against modem language....if it is done theologically well. '#'


mailto:[email protected]

THE INVESTITURE OF FRANK GRISWOLD AS THE TWENTY-FIFTH PRESIDING BISHOP

At 11 a.m. on January 10, 1998, Frank Griswold, together with a full assembly, celebrated the beginnings of his new ministry within the Episcopal Church at the National Ca

thedral. For Frank and his advisors, it was a celebration not of the glorious holy and undivided Trinity or of the exalted Lord Jesus Christ, King, Priest and Prophet, but of what they call baptismal ministry, first of Frank's then of everybody's.

"In the liturgy we celebrate baptismal ministry — the ministry we all share through our baptismal 'ordination'; the beginning of the ministry of Frank Griswold as Presiding Bishop ofthe Episcopal Church, the current manifestation of his own baptismal ministry; and this new season of ministry in the life of our Church. " (Service leaflet)

Thus the moment Frank entered the cathedral to a great fanfare it was his service. He received gifts from a variety of ecumenical sources, he preached the sermon and he led the liturgy and was the chief celebrant. There was no confession of sins and no absolution; there were no petitionary prayers for the future ministry of Frank. It was a CELEBRATION and to think of sin or engage in petition was deemed out of place.

Before the Rite 2 eucharist (prayer D), there was the renewal ofthe "baptismal covenant" followed by asperges everywhere. The notion that we make a contract with God and that this includes working for liberation has been central to the liberal agenda of Bishop Browning. It is now central for Frank and his team, but it comes with an anglo-catholic flavor and ceremonialism (incense was also used in the service). Browning worked via niceness but Griswold works via religion.

The claim that all are ordained in baptism to the ministry of peace and justice stated within the [1979] baptismal covenant, and that ordination to the priesthood is merely an extension of this, is a

new liberal doctrine and logically it allows anyone who is baptized to be ordained as an aspect of her/his baptism — women, active homosexual persons, divorced and remarried persons etc. Anyone who is baptized and is approved by the community of faith can be ordained priest! Gone are the rales of yesterday.

Frank's sermon continued the theme of his statements at the General Convention. God is found through and in all of us and thus truth is dispersed in and through many souls. In conversation and in listening to one another we have the best way to discover truth and find God. (In other words a mixture of pantheism and relativism.) Christ, and the "risen life of Christ", is the symbol used to refer (a) to the experience of this truth gained through conversation and (b) to the feelings caused by mutual celebration in the eucharist.

One seasoned commentator wrote: "Griswold's approach has been called 'Zen Benedictine,' and his sermon is proof that he has attained to the 'no-mind' state. There is more of Zen in his string of koans, however, than of Benedict. Benedict would have given him a cheerful kick in the.... and put him to scrabbing latrines for five years. Ora et labora."

Though an excessively long investiture, it was a very happy occasion with the vast majority present obviously glad to be there. Frank behaved perfectly and charmingly. It was a great success for the new episcopal religion. However, a small minority was sad and tearful for they saw in it the total triumph of the new episcopal religion, which celebrates God[dess] via self-esteem and works for its realization in the "community of faith." These persons did not receive the sacramental bread and wine and they went away with heavy hearts.

PS. Notably absent were official representatives from any of the Churches in Africa and Asia bringing greetings to the new PB! +

The Society for the Preservation of the Book of Common Prayer (The Prayer Book Society of the Episcopal Church) P.O. Box 35220 Philadelphia, PA 19128-0220

NON-PROFIT. ORG. U.S. POSTAGE

PAID LOUISVILLE. KY Permit No. 879

January/February 1998 >ATE · 2018-09-01 · January/February 1998 >ATE Volume 17, Number 1 THE...

Documents

Transcript of January/February 1998 >ATE · 2018-09-01 · January/February 1998 >ATE Volume 17, Number 1 THE...