1928 BCP Class Introduction

The majority of our congregation previously attended the Episcopal Church. Their reasons for coming to the Anglican Church in America are as varied as the people themselves.

• The beautiful Worship Service in Traditional English.
• Marriage no longer a lifelong commitment and sacrament.
• Descriptions of God no longer indicated His special role as creator of us and our world.
• Women were ordained as deacons, priests and bishops.
• Communion services were sometimes unrecognizable.
• Communion not restricted to those who understand.
• Acceptance of homosexuality as an alternate life style.
• Homosexuals ordained, consecrated and accepted as role models.

The one thing that caused very few to leave is the rejection of the Formularies of the Reformed Catholic church and the Anglican Way. Changes in doctrine and discipline are frequently overlooked until a specific action is implemented by the clergy or laity. Only theologians understood the potential for change in the 1979 Prayer Book. The few who understood the objective of the changes in doctrine and discipline left ECUSA in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

What many people do not understand is that the Book of Common Prayer also contains the Formularies that define our doctrine and discipline. They are not stated as theology or dogma. They are simply practiced in the ancient way with the ancient intent of worshipping God and seeking to learn and desire His Will.

The purpose of this class is to understand how seemingly innocent deviation in the form and practice of Anglican worship could bring about the schism we all endure. We will explore how the 1928 Book of Common Prayer clearly demonstrates our faith and practice and discourages innovation originating from a desire to satisfy the current cultural requirements.

In 1977, a group of dissenting Episcopalians met in St. Louis to form a continuing Anglican Church, in which the traditional faith could be practiced. In 1978, Paul Seabury wrote an essay, “Trendier Than Thou” in which he outlined the proceedings that led to “The Affirmation of St. Louis.” I will quote a few examples from his document to indicate the type and degree of changes being effected.

Barbara Walters asked the first woman ordained as a priest under the new dispensation, “Do you consider yourself to be a woman of strong religious faith?” The response was, “No, I do not. But I do believe in caring, and that’s what religion is all about, isn’t it?”

St. John the Divine in New York City and Grace Cathedral in San Francisco endured incredible confrontations as they were transformed from revered houses of worship to theatres displaying the latest in social and cultural excesses. The interesting thing is that these confrontations arose not from any religious differences or issues, but from quite ordinary strife among mortals in a situation where authority, custom, and conventions have broken down. The ensuing power struggle bore no resemblance to great religious quarrels over faith and liturgy because, “There are no heresies in a dead religion.”

The movement to protect nature led John Noonan to say, “A bird or a blade of grass in a national park could be entitled to greater legal protection than a five month old human fetus.” In 1944, W. H Auden wrote a play, “For the Time Being” in which he had Herod devise a mock prayer for equalizers who required a more “human” Divinity:

“O God, put away justice and truth for we cannot understand them and do not want them. Eternity would bore us dreadfully. Leave Thy heavens and come down to our earth of water clocks and hedges. Become our uncle. Look after Baby, amuse Grandfather, escort Madam to the Opera, help Willy with his homework, introduce Muriel to a handsome naval officer. Be interesting and weak like us, and we will love you as we love ourselves.”

This mock prayer appears to be prophetic in reference to the 1960’s. Deity could now be tailored to the current fashion; a nice, cool, relaxed God could be procured. God would be a friend and Christianity a celebration of life.

The Sacrament of Marriage was replaced in 1973 with permission to practice “sequential monogamy”. This allowed the laity to practice what had been occurring in the Episcopal clergy for several years. In 1976, the ordination of women priests was approved and elective abortion was officially favored as a position of the Episcopal Church. The race was on to liberate other “classic victims” of traditional restraint, such as lesbians and homosexuals. The church believed the world should set the agenda for the Church. Since the world changes its agenda capriciously, the Church becomes directionless.

Schism existed and Paul Seabury described the situation as follows. “A devotion to institutional continuity – the natural reaction in a time of uncertainly – causes many within the established Church to swallow the unpalatable, while the secession of those who resolutely reject the unpalatable, removes from the Church a check against even further deterioration. Some of the most bitter opponents of the new church may be the conservatives who stay behind.” This provides a partial answer to why the conservatives now attempting to leave the Episcopal Church do not seek solace in the established continuing churches.

An indication that the Episcopal Church has not reverted from their social agenda appears in the June/July 2008 issue of the Christian Challenge. The Episcopal Church’s chief liturgical officer, the Rev. Clayton Morris offered this explanation. “Why does the church gather around a table with food and drink in its primary act of worship? Because God calls the church to a ministry of reconciliation. The church is called to restore the dignity of creation. It is all about feeding and being fed. It is all about making certain that all God’s children are safe, whole and nourished. The ritual breaking of bread in the midst of the assembly reminds us of our task while it embodies its reality.”

This dissension also exists in the Anglican Communion centered in Canterbury. The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) held in Jerusalem recently adopted “The Jerusalem Declaration” to reaffirm 14 tenets of the faith. The declaration upholds: “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation”; “the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church”; the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion; the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as “a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture”; the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical order, and “God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman.” Finally it acknowledges “freedom in secondary matters” but pledge to “work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide” their fellowship, the most obvious of them being women’s ordination.

We must recognize in this study that the intentions of the Episcopal Church were without question. They saw injustice and sought to correct it. There was no evil intent and any evil resulting is due to our fallen human condition. We must also recognize that there are many remaining within the Episcopal Church with a burning desire to see it return to its traditional roots and again proclaim the Will of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ without apology.

The objective of this class will be to delineate where and how such good intentions fell victim to individual and corporate self absorption. The reason for taking such a specific look is not to make ourselves look better by comparison. We are all pitiful in comparison to what God wills for us. Rather, it is to help us understand two specific points. First, why do we choose to continue to stand separate? And second, why do the conservatives in the Episcopal Church find us unacceptable? The first point will help us explain our position to others. The second point will remind us to be humble in dealing with those still fighting from within the Episcopal Church.