A Deo et Rege

I used to think those people who complained about the 1979 Book of Common Prayer protested a bit too much. Now, however, I can feel their pain. Although I use and prefer the 1979 BCP (but would gladly let the 1979 book become an Alternative Service Book and welcome a restoration of the official 1928 BCP), I have seen firsthand how quickly and recklessly the Episcopal Church pursues liturgical “reform.” The “Enriching Our Worship” series is politically correct, ultra-feminist, non-catholic (barely even Christian) and sadly the future of the liturgy. Yes, I believe this (or at least its “spirit”) is the beginning of the new “Book of Common Prayer.”

I first encountered Enriching Our Worship during Lent when I sat through the “new and improved” “Great Litany.” It was a litany, but it was not very great. It contained no trinitarian language and never once referred to Christ as Lord. God was Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier and we asked “Savior, deliver us.” This litany can’t even affirm the basic teaching about God (as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) or utter the basic Christian confession (Jesus is Lord). Unfortunately, this represents the general tenor of the new liturgical “reform:” an end to trinitarian language, a removal of supposedly oppressive terms (Lord, King, Master), and an obsession with avoiding using masculine pronouns for God. The result is poor theology (often modalistic or quasi-trinitarian), nonsensical or bland language (e.g God was in Christ reconciling the world to Godself), and a cutting off of the liturgy from its roots (cutting out such important themes as Christ’s Lordship, Kingship, etc. tends to do this).

Why is this a big deal? It’s just an option, right? Yes, but only for now. The seminary I recently attended often used Enriching Our Worship in place of the Book of Common Prayer. Parishes are also substituting EOW material for BCP liturgies. Radical feminism has infiltrated the Episcopal Church (and most other mainlines). Even seminaries that require no standards of doctrinal orthodoxy will require language standards. Anything and everything can be said of God and no one cares (it’s all about diversity, remember?). Until, that is, someone refers to God as “he” or “Father.” Then, suddenly the revisionists start enforcing their form of orthodoxy.

The Episcopal House of Bishop showed their usual tolerance by refusing to make the 1979 edition an ASB or to include a 1928 rite. The result? By enforcing their own agenda they drove out many faithful conservatives. They did the same with women’s ordination and now gay ordination. They allowed no real discussion, pushed it through illegally or semi-legally (in all three cases) and then tell the conservatives to sit down and shut up. Then, when the conservatives are angry (and rightly so), they accuse the conservatives of being whiners or intolerant. I hope the network starts in earnest. I have seen the liturgical future of the Episcopal Church and the feeling I get is not unlike that of Frodo when he encounters a ringwraith.

I hear the labels evangelical and catholic thrown around alot. Some, like myself, even claim to be evangelical catholic. I define this as holding to the catholic faith (the Creeds, the councils, etc.) while having a zeal for mission and evangelism. I think as far as Christianity is concerned, both need each other. Without the catholic faith, Christianity is often an experience in search of a theology. Feeling and experience can be elevated to such a level that ancient and biblical truth can be rejected and replaced with the flavor of the day (whether theologically or morally). Without an evangelical side, the Church, although possessing catholic truth, becomes insular and nevers shares the Gospel with the rest of the world. The Great Commission spells out evangelical catholicism in a nutshell: Go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This stipulates both evangelism and apostolic teaching.

Ok, a “secret” memo has been leaked saying that the AAC bishops and members don’t want to be a part of the Episcopal Church and that they would like to form an alternative to ECUSA to be recognized by various primates (and perhaps even the ABC). I have a bad feeling this is going to be the excuse the liberals are looking for to crack down on orthodoxy in ECUSA. Of course, for anyone who has followed the fallout from GC2003, none of this should come as any surprise. I was under the impression this was the AAC’s plan all along. I would probably no longer be Anglican now if I didn’t think this was the game plan. I for one am glad to see that the AAC really does take true re-alignment seriously. The network within a church has serious limits, which re-alignment solves (one example is the election of bishops: do you think the HOB would approve another Jack Iker or Bob Duncan? Yeah right!). I say bring on re-alignment and the sooner the better.

http://www.anglicancommuniondioceses.org

Click Here to Join the new Anglican Communion Network in North America. Just sign your name electronically (warning: it will be visible to others after you sign, but only your name and location, nothing else) and you are in the network. This is a positive step, something we can actually do! A Happy New Year!