Decline of the Episcopal Church

Professor Les Fairfield's article "Modernist Decline and Biblical Renewal: The Episcopal Church from 1870-2000" as posted on the American Anglican Council's website contains an excellent discussion of how the ECUSA has come to its present sad state.  This article is well worth the read.

Book of Common Prayer Revisions

Since I first joined the Anglican Church I have seen the need to have the liturgy spoken in modern English.  The traditional Book of Common Prayer is a service to be appreciated to be sure, but it is too inaccessible to be the liturgy of a growing church.  So until recently, I was a strong supporter of the American style of prayer book revision.  Upon further reflection, I have come to realize that there is a lot more at stake in prayer book revision then modernizing language.

I have noticed two general approaches to prayer book revision.  The first approach ditches the traditional Book of Common Prayer and replaces it with a completely new prayer book.  One example of this approach can be seen in New Zealand which completely ditched the traditional Book of Common Prayer and wrote an entirely new prayer book.  This prayer book, while being praised by some for its unique and creative liturgies, is criticized by others for its weak theology.  

Another example can be seen in the United States with its revised Book of Common Prayer.  Some in the Canadian church would like to follow the American example.  The American 1979 Book of Common Prayer, followed by the Canadian Book of Alternative Services, established two communion rites.  One was written in the traditional language and was based on the traditional communion service.  The other was written in modern language.  Such an approach purports to satisfy both those who want traditional language and those who modern language.  Unfortunately, there is a lot more at stake then language.

The modern language rites of these books guts the theology of the traditional Book of Common Prayer communion service.  What has happened is not simply modernized language, but a whole different theology brought in under the guise of modernizing language.  The only two options are accepting the difficult language Rite I service or accepting the modern language and bland, dumbed down theology of Rite II.

The second approach can be seen in the new English Book of Common Worship.  The Church of England has retained the traditional Book of Common Prayer but has introduced a range of supplemental services in the Book of Common Worship.  These new services include a  modern language translation of the traditional service and new modern language services with a strong traditional theology.

I strongly believe that the second option is the way to go.  The traditional Book of Common Prayer should be retained as the norm.  This would provide the anchor point for further liturgical revisions.  Newer prayer books should not include King James English rites - the need for such rites is not a growing one and those parishes that would use such a rite, would probably prefer the original one anyway.  Instead newer prayer books should include a modern language translation of the traditional Book of Common Prayer service and also modern language rites reflecting traditional Anglican theology.

One of the purposes of the Eucharist liturgy is to provide a summary teaching of the work of Jesus Christ each time the Eucharist is celebrated.  Rite II in the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer does not really provide this.  Sometimes, during an American Eucharist, I will page to Rite I and read that to myself rather then hear the bland Rite II service.  Although I do not like the difficult English, reading Rite I makes the Eucharist much more meaningful for me.  I really wish that the American church had something akin to the Church of England's new Book of Common Worship.

"To Mend the Net" Proposal

Early in 2001, two primates offered a proposal entitled To Mend the Net (read a review of the book here) for establishing real mutual accountability within the Anglican Communion.  This proposal is currently undergoing further study.  I think this is a very good proposal.  The Anglican Communion has historically stood on two interconnected principles: provincial autonomy and mutual accountability.  The autonomous national churches were expected to submit to the apostolic faith and discipline of the wider Communion.

In the last twenty years, the Episcopal Church in the United States has distorted the notion of provincial autonomy, claiming that it permits the American church to flout the order and teaching of the international Communion without repercussion.  The only surviving element of mutual accountability for the Episcopal Church is the inviolability of geographical boundaries.

The "To Mend the Net" proposal seeks to right the balance by introducing a process for ensuring mutual accountability within the Anglican family.  This is an idea whose time has come.

First, the structure of the Anglican communion with autonomous national churches stems from a bygone era.  The world has shrunk and national boundaries have blended.  It seems to me, terribly outdated to so jealously guard the old model of independent national churches, when every other organization is "going global."  The "To Mend the Net" proposal is a step towards a global interconnected church.

Second, the Church ought not be constrained by political boundaries.  Christians are Christians - we are citizens of the world.  Each society has its biases and weaknesses.  The Church ought to transcend these.  An international Church is in a much better position to avoid the cultural traps and pitfalls then churches that stubbornly cling to their provincial power.  The "To Mend the Net" proposal permits the international Anglican Communion to guard against any of its branches becoming too close a captive to a national culture.

Third, the Anglican Communion - as a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church - MUST discipline its errant provinces and bishops.  See my discussion on apostolic succession.  As I argue there, it is incumbent upon bishops and churches which claim to be in line of apostolic succession to discipline those parts of the church which deviate from the apostolic faith and order.  After all, the whole purpose behind apostolic succession was to guard and maintain that faith and order.  Accordingly, the international primates have an apostolic duty to discipline branches of the Anglican Communion as detailed in the "To Mend the Net" proposal.

Fourth, I don't think that the Anglican Communion will survive without some check on the status quo of unbridled provincial autonomy.  The "To Mend the Net" proposal will serve to correct the delicate balance that allows the Anglican Communion to survive united.

The "To Mend the Net" proposal is a very modest way to restore order in the Communion, to protect apostolic faith and order, and to make the Anglican Communion the one international and unified body of Christ that its Celtic heritage is calling it to be.

Anglican Mission in America and Anglican Polity

I will admit to being in somewhat of a quandary when thinking about the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA).  The AMiA is, of course, the new Anglican jurisdiction in America whose bishops are part of the Anglican Provinces of Rwanda and Southeast Asia.

While I sympathize with the reasoning behind the AMiA, I believe that it was not the right thing to do at the time.  Having said that, I would also say that the Episcopal Church (USA) has violated the norms of Anglican polity every bit as much as the AMiA has.  The Episcopal Church has violated the Anglican principle of mutual accountability by ignoring the clear Anglican consensus as to the limits of diversity when determining apostolic faith and practice.  However, two wrongs don't make a right.

I believe that when an Anglican province or diocese so abandons the apostolic faith and discipline so as to require the alternative Episcopal oversight of orthodox parishes, the erring bishop ought first to be declared out of communion.  These decisions also ought not to be made unilaterally by the individual provinces.  One of the big problems in the Anglican Communion today is the elevation of provincial autonomy over the more important principle of mutual accountability.  The AMIA consecrations do not reverse this trend.

A more appropriate and wise response can be found in the "To Mend the Net" proposal.  In my editorial on the subject, I argue that it strikes a fine balance between the preservation of the apostolic faith and order, the unity of the Church, and provincial autonomy.  

Apostolic Succession - What Does it Mean?

Some time ago I heard a sermon preached about the agreement between the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.  Part of the sermon discussed the Episcopalian view of its bishops being in the line of the apostolic succession.  This part of the sermon bothered me and after some thought I realized what the problem was.  As explained, the Episcopalian view of the apostolic succession sounded very much like a game of tag.  The Episcopal Church apparently believed that it stood in the apostolic succession simply because its bishops had been correctly tagged along the way and had followed its own internal church rules.  Clearly, departing from a parent church was also okay, otherwise the Anglican Communion itself was on shaky ground.

I wondered if this was really enough.  I mean according to this view, if a John Spong and a couple like-minded bishops decided to split off and form their own church, that church would have the right to claim that it is in line of apostolic succession.  It seems truly bizarre that a non-Christian church could, then, claim to be in line of the apostles.  Something more must be required.

To answer this question, we ought to consider what the initial purpose was with the apostles.  They were given the task of preserving the apostolic faith and discipline, and unity, of the Church.  Accordingly, a church claiming to be in line of the apostles must preserve the apostolic faith and discipline.  This includes the provision of necessary enforcement provisions which must be used when needed.  Second, a church claiming to be in line of apostolic succession must be truly catholic - that is, have a broad outlook, but within the limits set out by the apostolic faith and discipline.  A church which does not enforce apostolic faith, doctrine and order is not performing the essential task set out for the apostles and their successors.

In the current Anglican Communion, a crisis is brewing as a result of the Episcopal Church's violation of the apostolic faith and discipline.  Liberal Americans argue for a minimalist definition of the apostolic faith and discipline which would essentially allow a non-theist like Spong to pass muster.  Most Anglicans do not agree with this minimalist definition however.  They see the flagrant violation of apostolic standards that is going on.  Accordingly, I would argue that it is the apostolic duty of the Anglican primates to implement a system by which errant Anglican provinces can be brought back in line or excommunicated.