A New Spin on the Stack

Fr. Bill Klock shared his stack of Bibles a while back, and now he's done the same with his extensive collection of Prayer Books -- three stacks' worth, in fact. If you're interested in the Book of Common Prayer, be sure to follow the link. But be warned -- reading his post, I couldn't help ordering another BCP, so this could cost you!

Comments

[Richard]

Be sure you're purchasing the real Book of Common Prayer, and not the 1979 Episcopal revision which shouldn't be called "Common" prayer. Stick with the 1928 if you're in the States or the 1962 in Canada (which has a few sad examples of the theological deterioration starting to set in to the Anglican church) or even better the 1918.

[Scott]

I'm really tired of comments like this about the 1979 BCP, which is a legitimate, official revision that I happen to be glad to use. Prefer the editions you mention if you like, but realize the 1979 is "real" as well.

[Fr. Bill Klock]

I'm in general agreement with Richard on this. But I should add: Many seem to mistakenly consider language to be the issue, as though a modern-language translation of the Book of Common Prayer can never be legitimate. I disagree with that argument. No one's argued that Cranmerian English can't be translated into Spanish, French, etc. -- why not contemporary English. The issue has to do with the very definition and nature of "Common Prayer," and when it comes to those criteria most contemporary Anglican prayer books fail miserably. The 1979 BCP is without a doubt a "prayer book" in the general sense of the word, but its very nature is at odds with the most basic definition of "Common Prayer" and the intent of Cranmer and the revisers of other early editions of the BCP.

The point of Common Prayer was for everyone everywhere within the Reformed Church of England to be praying the same thing. Not only do the modern prayer books ensure that every Anglican jurisdiction is doing its own thing and lacks unity and uniformity in prayer with other jurisdictions, but even within a jurisdiction like ECUSA, different churches using the same 1979 Prayer Book are using drastically differing liturgies (i.e., Rite I and Rite II, not to mention the so-called Rite III). Additionally, even accounting for the differences between traditional and modern language, there is very little Common Prayer found in the modern prayer books. Most of the contemporary Eucharistic liturgies begin with a recognisably Anglican "Collect for Purity" but in most cases there's not much beyond that collect that resembles Common Prayer -- not even in something as basic as structure.

Addressing the basic intent and nature of Common Prayer doesn't address the drastic theological shift made in the 1979 BCP and many other modern prayer books. If we define the Common Prayer tradition by its theology, the 1979 Prayer Book again falls far outside of what it means to be the Book of Common Prayer, except perhaps for Rite I -- which still waters down the theology of Common Prayer. The people of ECUSA were truly sold a false bill of goods with the BCP revision of the 1960's and 1970's. The justification for revision was the need for modern-language, but the modern-language became the cover for the introduction of liberal, heterodox theology. The revisers were well acquainted with the old axiom: "Lex orandi, lex credendi." They knew that the best way to push their agenda of liberal theology onto the Church was to work it into the prayers of the Church, because if you pray it enough, eventually you'll start to believe it -- even when it undermines Holy Scripture itself.

[Fr. Matthew]

One interesting new development is an effort by the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon of the Prayer Book Society USA to prepare a new prayer book entitled "An Anglican Prayer Book" that is (1) contemporary in its language and yet (2) still falls within the Common Prayer tradition as Fr. Klock outlines--see the URL I've provided. (Unfortunately, this new edition is currently only in hardcover. See:

http://pbs1928.blogspot.com/2008/02/anglican-prayer-book.html

[Fr. Bill Klock]

Fr. Matthew,

I have great hope that the new AMiA modern-language Prayer Book will bring another level of unity to the Common Cause partners. I have not yet seen the new edition, but am very familiar with the draft copy that's been in trial use for the past year. "An Anglican Prayer Book" is definitely a contemporary prayer book that fits within the Common Prayer tradition. It's a good literal translation of the 1662 BCP with the addition of a small number of additional services that have come into common use, like Compline. In addition to the 1662 Eucharistic prayer, they've also included modernised versions of those from both the 1928 and Canadian 1662 Prayer Books, which should give the new book a broader appeal. I'm on the modern language committee for the Reformed Episcopal Church, and while we only have two or three modern-language parishes in the entire denomination, my recommendation to the committee is that we drop our own work in favour of the AMiA's new book.

I hope that the new prayer book will also be picked up by the conservatives in ECUSA within the Common Cause partners (i.e., Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, San Joaquin, etc.) and many other parishes that recently came under various Global South bishops. At present most of them use the 1979 BCP. It would be nice to see everyone go back to the 1928, but that isn't realistic at this point. A big problem is the continuing presence of the 1979 BCP amongst the conservatives. The 1979 BCP undermines the Gospel in far too many places, elevates man to too high a post, and the Baptismal "Covenant" and especially the Ordinal lay a horribly faulty foundation for both membership and ministry within the Church. It would be wonderful to see the sound liturgy and theology of the 1662 BCP brought in, even in modern-language, as a solid foundation on which to build a new biblically orthodox province for North America.

I happen to be moving to take over as rector of one of our handful of parishes that is using modern-language liturgy. At present it's a hodge-podge, but the new "An Anglican Prayer Book" may be a good solution. A good number of copies are already on their way to be used by the joint fellowship of the Anglican, REC, and AMiA parishes in town. I'd certainly we willing to provide enough copies for the parish at my own expense.

[Jerry]

And I thought it was only us Baptists who had "spats". ;>)

I note that my Great-Great Grandmother's Book of Common Prayer and my Mother's childhood Book of Common Prayer are substantially the same as the Cambridge copy of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer that I possess, other than the obvious (Queen Victoria/King George/Queen Elizabeth). When did the Anglican Communion begin this splintering and lack of Uniformity?

[Fr. Bill Klock]

Jerry,

Modern liturgical revision began at different times in different parts of the Communion. In the past revision generally consisted of minor changes to localise the Prayer Book (i.e, changing prayers so as to cover a president rather than a monarch, or congress rather than parliament). A shift toward "high church" theology in the 19th Century led to relatively minor revisions in the early 20th Century in many places (i.e., USA, England, Ireland, and a bit later in South Africa) as a preference for the theology of the 1549 BCP came into vogue and the more theologically Protestant/Reformed 1662 fell out of favour with some. Again, those were not big changes, and to the uninitiated many of the changes would go unnoticed. The changes were still orthodox theologically. In the US major revision began to take place in the 1960's and coincided with the rise of both liberal theology in the Church and the ideological shifts of the 1960's (i.e., the civil rights movement, changes in sexual mores, etc). The liberals didn't like the classic BCP, which took a very high view of Scripture, proclaimed that men are sinful to the core and that the only means of redemption is through the substitutionary atonement made by Christ in his death and resurrection. The liberals also didn't like the way the BCP addressed sin and what it addressed as sin, favouring instead a more corporate view of sin rather than an individual and choosing to emphasise sins against the environment and social justice related issues. In some places these changes took longer to happen, and in some places -- mainly in the "Global South" they've had minimal impact.

The problem with leaving "Common Prayer" behind, is that you open the door to unceasing revision, not to mention biblical Christianity. Just as when the liberals left Scripture behind and decided to start taking their cues from the culture, there's no longer any standard and the church ends of being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." In the US the 1979 BCP made a drastic shift in the theology and practice of ECUSA, but only thirty years later it's already seen to be deficient by many who now want to move farther from orthodox Christianity. The 1979 BCP refers to the Trinity as the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" when what's now in vogue is something like "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" to avoid the masculine. Now we're seeing a shift toward "radical inclusion" that would welcome any and all, Christian or not, to the Lord's Table and the 1979 BCP doesn't allow for that. Not to mention that the social justice agenda of the 1979 BCP is now passe and needs to be updated to address the current social justice issues of our time. As you can see, such revision, cut off from the anchor of a high view of Scripture, takes us into an endless downward spiral.

[Richard]

Thank-you to all who have clarified my point in a much more thorough way than I could have. I'd like to add a quote from the great Anglican teacher, J. I. Packer on the difference between our Canadian Revision--the Book of Alternative Services--and the real deal Book of Common Prayer, "The BAS, one might say, is for nice people whereas the Prayer Book is for real people." In other words, as already mentioned, Prayerbook theology understands that "we are by nature sinful and unclean" in need of the unique atoning work of our one and only saviour Jesus Christ. The BAS rushes people into a foggier notion of grace with an even foggier notion of our sinfulness. In my understanding the BAS and the 1979 TEC Prayerbook have a great deal in common.

[PDS]

Ok...back up the truck. Can someone give me a simple explanation on what prayer books are? This subject jumped in the deep end without giving a little overview of what we're discussing. Thanks for your help!

[Fr. Bill Klock]

In general a Prayer Book is a volume that contains liturgical prayer. Pre-Reformation it would sometimes be used to describe the old breviaries that contained the liturgical prayers (and all that went with those prayers) used for the Divine Office -- the eight "hours" of prayer that monastics prayed through the day. I know Lutherans who sometimes refer to the books that contain their liturgies (i.e., Mattins, Vespers, Holy Communion) as prayer books too, but that's less common. Usually when one talks about a "Prayer Book" they're talking about The Book of Common Prayer or one of its derivatives. The BCP was the product of Archbishop Cranmer's reforming of the medieval liturgies at the time of the English Reformation. He took the old complicated liturgical books, condensed them down to something simple enough for any layman, Reformed (with a capital "R") the theology, and translated it all into English. The BCP contains the liturgies used by Anglicans (Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, Holy Communion, the Litany, Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, and Burial), but also contains the Psalter arranged for liturgical use, the lectionary appointing the daily reading of Scripture, and the Ordinal, which contains the liturgies used at the ordinations of deacons, presbyters, and bishops.

That said, part of the reason why so many Anglicans take these issues of prayer book revision so seriously is that the BCP is not just a liturgical resource, it's just as much a doctrinal formulary too. Historically the BCP contained the Thirty-nine Articles of religion, which outline the Reformation doctrine that Anglicans hold to (the closest thing to an Anglican Confession we have). But the entire Prayer Book itself also one big doctrinal formulary, considering that every bit of liturgy confesses doctrine. The Communion Service describes what we believe of the Lord's Supper. The same goes for Baptism, Marriage, Confirmation, etc. When much of the modern revision began, it served as a vehicle to alter not just the theology of the Prayer Book, but through that to alter the theology of the Church. To use the Episcopal Church as one example, you've now got people who have been using the 1979 BCP all their lives who no longer understand their sin nature, but instead believe the old "I'm okay, you're okay" bit, who no longer see the Lord's Supper as God's sacramental sign of redemption and communion, but instead as an offering we make to God because we're somehow worthy to do so, who think of sin in terms of man's collective sins against the environment rather than addressing personal offenses against God (not to mention having come to see many things virtuous that the Bible calls sin and vice versa), who believe that, because of the "baptismal covenant" that baptism is the sole prerequisite for any and all ministry in the Church and that baptism calls us to a life of activism more than it does to personal holiness and evangelism. I could go on, but I think this gives an adequate picture of why so many people are concerned about such things. Anglicans have a saying that I quoted before "Lex ordandi, lex credendi" meaning basically that what we pray is what we believe. It's very true and this principle has been used to manipulate the Church away from the "faith once delivered to the saints". It's been used to gradually dismantle the Christian faith and replace it with the Liberal faith, as J. Gresham Machen would say.

If you're interested in the content of a typical Prayer Book in the classical tradition, my parish website has the contents of the Reformed Episcopal Book of Common Prayer posted as multiple PDF files: http://homepage.mac.com/klock/lwec/bcp.htm

[Jerry]

Bill,

Thanks for your answer. I guess that it was because I am familiar with the 1662 BCP and the Anglican sacramental understanding of the Lord's Supper that I chose not to take communion during my brother-in-law's funeral in Houston last year, even though the officiating clergy requested that all participate regardless of background. As a Baptist, and believing the Lord's Supper to be an ordinance with no sacramental value, I did not feel right in participating as a matter of conscience.

I certainly appreciate the bulk of the 39 Articles, and wonder sometimes if I have a clearer understanding of Anglican history and practice than many Episcopalians. I am praying for my Anglican brothers, with a hope that the communion will return to its theological roots.