Current Editorial
PAST EDITORIAL
Unity in worship.
Why the proposal to replace the BCP and the BAS with a composite book of
worship is a bad idea.
There cannot be many Canadian Anglicans who have not been affected, disturbed, and even hurt by the sometimes bitter divisions over liturgy that have arisen in the last two decades or so, since the advent of experimental liturgies and especially the Book of Alternative Services 1985. Some eagerly embraced it as the new standard; some stedfastly refused to abandon the actual and official standard, the Book of Common Prayer 1962; some sought to make some use of both; and in these divisions Canadian Anglicans were caught up in the "worship wars" that have swept most North American denominations. Some exultantly disposed of the Anglican tradition in worship; some fervently refused to do so; and others claiming a lofty indifference to such trivial matters as liturgical forms, cried a pox on both houses. And at times, the controversy has generated a lot more heat than light, till we have all, to some extent or other, grown sick of it.It is no wonder then that the proposal has been made, and recently renewed by the Primate, Michael Peers, and the Bishop Coadjutor of Fredericton, William Hocken (among others), to replace both books by combining the best of each in a new, composite, book of worship. It is, however, a proposal which the Canadian Church should firmly decline -- not out of indifference to, but rather out of serious concern for, the unity, peace, and concord we seek for our church. This proposal seeks to impose a unity on the Church without laying the spiritual foundations for it, in a common understanding of what it means for us to worship God.
What must be grasped is that the divisions over worship are not simply a matter of liturgical style -- a matter of subjective preferences and taste, just as some prefer cappucino and others cafe latte, ridiculous to fight about. No doubt the differences in style are what catch people's attention first; and often discussion of the the two books remains simply at that level. But the dispute, when more fully considered, turns out to be not simply stylistic. It is not simply about prayer books. It has to do with rather sharply differing, and even contradictory, understandings of what it means for Christians to worship. There is a theological depth to the question of how we worship that cannot be overlooked, however inarticulately or inadequately it may be expressed by adherents of one view or another. Indeed, precisely because it is often expressed inadequately and inarticulately -- generating more heat than light -- it needs to be discussed openly, patiently, charitably, and by the best minds in the business, from all points of view. Only thus can we begin to move beyond what Robert Crouse calls the debate of screech against scream, into an intelligent and courteous clarification and resolution of differences.
Unfortunately, however, this is precisely the course of action which the Canadian Church has refused right from the beginning. Only the most cursory and inadequate efforts were made to provide a rationale for the Book of Alternative Services in terms that would persuade the Church. Those who sought to raise the profound theological questions underlying it were given a very cold shoulder indeed, and often sharply criticised for their alleged "disloyalty" and "disobedience" in persisting to discuss these questions. Shame to say, almost fifteen years after the introduction of the BAS, a genuine, serious, and open discussion of these matters has only recently been broached, in the most tentative way, by the Primate's Theological Commission and by the Faith, Worship, and Ministry Committee of the General Synod (for which these bodies deserve thanks). But still it is not clear that these efforts constitute a real beginning of discussion, or just a well-intentioned gesture.
So the proposal to combine "the best of both books" must founder precisely at the question, how do we decide what is "the best" of both books? Given the absence of any real consensus about what it means for Anglican Christians to worship God, how can we possibly decide what is "best" about either book? What some regard as "best" about the BAS (reconciliation through the group dynamics of the exchange of peace, communion for infants, a plethora of eucharistic prayers that rely chiefly on the imagery rather than the doctrine of Scripture, and so on) is what others would regard as least desireable in it, and contradictory of what is "best:" about the BCP (reconciliation through confession and absolution, communion for those confirmed at years of discretion, one standard eucharistic prayer that unites the imagery and doctrine of Scripture, and so on). And which psalter is "best"? or will both be printed? And which eucharistic lectionary is best? will both be permitted? None of these are likely to be resolved very easily in the absence of theological consensus about the nature of worship.
What is only too likely to happen, however, given the current bureaucratic and organizational configuration of the church, is that fragments of the BCP will be taken out of their proper context and subordinated to the liturgical approach of the BAS -- as one may see already, for instance, in the BAS' "Form of the Holy Eucharist in the language of the Book of Common Prayer, 1962". That is to say, that the Common Prayer tradition will be denied its own integrity, denatured and degraded, assimilated to a new BAS as just another "alternative" service, assimilated to the pluralism and doctrinal relativism of current fashion. It will be treated as just another "flavour" for those whose taste is "retro" rather than "avant-garde".
Such a book may indeed make for a certain institutional unity, or at least uniformity. It will be a unity imposed through institutional muscle on those without institutional power, against their will, and against their consciences. It will be a unity that depends on no consensus about what it means to worship God, but on bureaucratic fiat, backed up by bureaucratic bullying. It may indeed make for a certain unity. But does anyone really think that this will make for the unity of Christians? It is rather the triumph of the institutional will, which despairs of God, and despairs of his Word and Spirit's work, and seeks to impose by will alone the unity which is God's alone to give.
There is a better way -- the way of hope, Christian hope, which is both humble and charitable, which does not despair of God's bringing us to that full unity of heart and mind which he has promised his Church, and so patiently submits to the -- sometimes slow and painful! -- labour involved in building that unity in a common understanding of the faith and worship of the Church. It is a way that involves learning to live with our differences in worship, and learning to respect them, and to discuss them in such a way that these differences may come to be resolved. You would think that a church which claims to prize tolerance and freedom this would be obvious. It is very disturbing that tolerance and freedom and open debate are the very things which seem to be most in peril.
Prayer Book Society of Canada urges refusal of composite book.
In its recent Annual Meeting on the 23rd June at Halifax, Nova Scotia, the Prayer Book Society of Canada passed a resolution urging the leaders of the Canadian Church to decline the proposal to replace the BCP and the BAS with a composite book of worship. As vice-chairman David Curry said, "The continued proliferation of new liturgies heightens the demand for a stable standard of Anglican identity. Without it, alternative liturgies go into la-la land". Furthermore, "the challenges of a new millenium cannot be met by dumping the classical distinctives of the Anglican tradition, as these are embodied in the Book of Common Prayer. Rather, they require us to rediscover, and to root ourselves more deeply, in the essentials of our Anglican identity in the Common Prayer tradition". Others urged that Anglicans, both clergy and laity, make representations to their bishops on this matter.To that end the PBSC has revamped and streamlined its operations. While the National Society will continue to co-ordinate the grassroots activities of its many branches across the country to encourage the living tradition of Common Prayer, a new venture is being established, a Foundation for Common Prayer, to address more fully the theological and intellectual questions that arise from that tradition.
A note on our Editor:
The Rev'd Gavin Dunbar was Rector of the Parish of Ecum Secum, Nova Scotia, and now serves as an associate priest in the parish of St. John's, Savannah, Georgia.
He is the editor of the Anglican Free Press, and past Vice-President of the Nova Scotia / PEI branch of the Prayer Book Society of Canada, and a former instructor at the Atlantic St. Michael's Youth Conference. He has written and lectured extensively on a range of topics, and has many god-children.