The idolatry of the Holy Screen

Last month I attended a blended service that uses the ACNA liturgy, Hymnal 1982 hymns and praise songs. As blended services go, it was probably the most tastefully done that I’ve seen — either because of the sensibilities of the music director, or because he (and the rector) don’t think hymns should be second class citizens.

So with blended worship done well, what was jarring was the projection screen. I’ve seen plenty of them (alas even in churches), but I’ve never been a member of a church that uses them every week.

One of the limitations is the one that I remarked previously: hymnal-free is harmony free. I knew one of the hymns well enough from memory to (more or less) sing the harmony without music, but otherwise I felt cheated of a chance to sing praise to God utilizing the gifts He has given me (and also staying within my vocal range).

The other limitation is one that I’d only briefly noticed before. As the Gospel reading was processed to the center of the church, it is customary for the congregation to turn and face the Gospel and the deacon (or in this case, the priest). However, as at home, everyone’s attention was firmly fixed on the screen for the duration of the gradual. (As it turns out, they were also fixed on the screen for the text of the Gospel reading — I didn’t notice because I tend to focus on the reader and not on reading the text).

So to our 21st century sanctuaries we have brought the key cultural artifact of  online culture. Instead of the Word or the Cross, we now turn our attention and adoration to the Holy Screen. This might seem harsh — but just watch how the H.S. changes the worship experience.

The screen was supplemented with a four page (two sides of one piece of paper) handout that included the text and music for the Gloria (H82: S280), the gradual hymn, and the four-part offertory. People could have used the handout to face the Gospel book, but only some of the congregation picked it up beforehand.

I talked to the music director afterwards, and have a little more empathy for his difficult choices — both on distributing the text and (someday) the music. The handout doesn’t include everything to save money, and those who don’t read music probably won’t pick up the handout (so he needs to provide lyrics some other way).

Long term, they use too many praise hymns to get by with just a hymnal. He would like to put together a booklet of hymns and praise songs, but the musical canon of this young church is still (at least somewhat) evolving.

I am used to the hymnal + prayer book fumbling and find it strangely comforting. However, it really only works if you’ve memorized the service music as fumbling for three (or four hymns) is different from going back and forth between the prayer and the sanctus etc.

As Anglican churches continue to attract both non-Christians and non-liturgical Christians, I understand the need to make the service more approachable to visitors. I would argue that having a regular member help the confused visitor next to them is a better solution than any paper or technology.

That said, I do think my church (and other similar churches) have come up with the most reasonable compromise:

• Fixed service booklets (perhaps different ones for Ordinary Time, penitential and festal seasons) that include both the prayers and the service music (words and notes)
• A weekly insert of 4-8 pp. that includes the collect, Scripture readings and the hymn numbers — and a copy of any hymns not in the hymnal
• A hymnal for most (or all) of the hymns

If a church had a booklet instead of a hymnal, it could substitute for the latter. Personally, I hope to continue at a hymnal church for another 30-40 years, but we will see.

Longer term, some have suggested we should have e-books instead of paper books, booklets or inserts. It might work with a 6-10" screen, but the 4" screen of the typical cellphone is not very practical for this purpose. There is also the question of whether we want to further privilege the Holy Screen in our worship, or to say to newcomers without phones that they are not welcome.

So today’s use of screens for music and liturgy seems to be a short-term expedient, particularly for churches who can’t buy a set of books, don’t want to drag them each week to a temporary rented space, or are unwilling to commit to singing the same music two years in a row.

We will have a more elegant technical solution by the end of this century, but for now I think this compromise is a reasonable one.

When Common Prayer Was Common

Earlier this month, we went to a 28 BCP congregation with our teen. My wife and I had been there a couple of times (it’s a long drive) but our daughter had not. I was amazed at how much she knew of the liturgy and service music: the original (vs. modified) Nicene Creed, the General Confession (vs. Confession Lite), the Scottish Gloria, the Merbecke Angus Dei and Sanctus. (None of us knew the Kyrie).

She has almost no exposure to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. She spent all of preschool in Rite I, and then in the next nine years split time between Lutheran, 28 BCP (perhaps three years) and then Rite I; for the last few years (until recently) she has been worshiping with the ACNA trial use liturgy. On the other hand, it was very familiar for my wife and I, who spent almost all of our first four decades (i.e the 20th century) with the 28 BCP and then Rite I.

To me, our experience was a powerful reminder of the brilliance of Cranmer’s vision: the Book of Common Prayer is a book of common prayer. At one point in history, you could walk into a church anywhere in the country (or perhaps the world) and fully participate in the service. The prayers you learned as a kid would be the ones you would say until you breath your last breath. Among creedal Protestants, the Anglican faith was more defined by common worship than a common confession because (as known to 5th century Christians) Lex orandi, Lex credendi.

Of course, this also applies to hymns and service music. Yes, churches need a variety of forms and setting — I'm now a fan of the penitential vs. ordinary time approach to service music — but continuity and familiarity are underappreciated virtues.

Books of Alternative Services Rather Than Common Prayer

The brilliance of Thomas Cranmer was to provide a new prayer book in the vernacular that both linked back to the Latin Sarum (i.e. Salisbury) Rite and standardized the liturgy across the entire church. From the 16th century until the latter half of the 20th century, this was the norm for the CoE and Anglicans worldwide.

In America,  the 1979 prayer book marked a break for ECUSA from a Book of Common Prayer to what Peter Toon correctly noted was an Alternative Services Book. It provides multiple services and multiple variants, and also started the process of ongoing prayer book revision. The 2015 TEC convention vowed to start a new round of prayer book revision, in part to offer a new “gender neutral” version of the 1928 BCP marriage rite for high church LGBT parishioners.

We would love to say that Mother England has avoided these liturgical and doctrinal errors, but they haven’t. Planning a future trip to London, I found that “prayer book” services listed on the CoE church locator website were a small fraction of those local parishes.

With liturgy — as with bible translations — the 21st century model seems to be that revision is an ongoing process of modernizing the language — and the theology — rather than maintaining continuity with previous generations.

Traditional Language and Process

It’s hard to tell what the ACNA will end up doing. It opted for a single unified prayer book — rather than variant services — but following the 1978 Rite II model of a radical break from Elizabethan English. (To be fair, this is exactly the model promoted by Toon himself). It’s hard to tell if this will be a one-time or ongoing process: the disadvantage of having a standing (rather than temporary) committee on liturgy or music is that they will feel a need to do (i.e. change) something.

Among ACNA member bodies, the Reformed Episcopal Church has had relatively infrequent revisions of its prayer book — in 1873 (when it broke from ECUSA), 1963 and 2003. My impression is that the latter is recommended but not universal among REC churches.

For those that left ECUSA in between REC and ACNA — i.e. those Continuing Anglicans who quit ECUSA over the 1979 prayer book — they have been defined by their use of the 1928 BCP. In retrospect, their 1977 concerns about theological and liturgical revision have proven remarkably prescient.

Despite their severe fragmentation, these Schism I jurisdictions share a single unchanging prayer book (However, their prayer book differs from 1928 in that the lectionary was revised in 1945). This is probably the only pocket of liturgical unity in all of North American Anglicanism, continuing to live out Cranmer’s vision.

Still, having a book doesn’t define a process: It is a good prayer book, but what will the process be if there is something that must be updated? How will these churches reject recent heresies of the post-Biblical church?

In the end, I was struck by how dramatically easy it was for our family to worship using the standardized rite. Our daughter had never set foot in either in this church or a church of its province (ACC); the 28 BCP parish we previously attended was APCK. In terms of liturgy or theology, there is more variance within the TEC (or ACNA) than there is between the various jurisdictions of the continuing church.

So this raises (once again) the obvious question: if it’s the same faith, same worship and same prayer book, why are there dozens of Continuing jurisdictions in the US — other than 30-year-old grievances and a desire to propagate (or retain) purple shirts?

Liturgical choices for new parishes

In visiting various Schism I and Schism II parishes this year, I have gotten a clearer idea of what the various alternatives are for those planting new Anglican churches. For today’s Anglo-Catholic church planting session at ICCA 2015, I thought I’d write down these alternatives for prospective church planters.

Some important choices are front and center, such as which diocese (or province) to affiliate with, stances on key theological issues (e.g. women’s ordination) and calling your first rector (vicar); these are beyond the scope of today’s effort. Instead, let me lay out a few less obvious ones, particularly those that apply to new Anglo-Catholic leaning parishes.

1. Physical Infrastructure

New churches have to make basic choices related to the physical infrastructure:

• Permanent or weekly setup. The proverbial school gym is available in any community, but requires weekly setup; an existing church will already be setup, but not available at prime time on Sunday morning (unless you find an abandoned church). Later on, parishes can have permanent setup on Sunday morning if they can afford to build or rent their own dedicated facilities.
• Altar and linens. Is there an existing altar setup or do you bring your own? Do you have colors to cover all the seasons? Do the color shades match your vestments?
• Kneeling. Will your service include kneeling — either for every prayer (ala 28 BCP) or at key points (confession, thanksgiving, before communion). If so, will there be permanent kneelers or temporary prayer cushions? (There’s the related issue of pews or chairs, but in my experience this is decided once you choose the site).
• Public address. Do you want to amplify the spoken liturgy? If so, is there a public address system (e.g. at a school or church) for the clergy or lay readers – with wireless mics – or do you bring your own?
• Musical infrastructure. Is there a mechanical piano, traditional organ, or electronic piano or organ? How does this tie into the PA? Does its placement allow conducting of (or by) the choir?
• Liturgy distribution. Prayer book, service booklet, or weekly printed order of service?
• Music distribution. Similarly is there a printed hymnal, hymns printed in the weekly bulletin, or projected on a screen? (By 2020, I expect some churches will be using real-time transmission to smartphones and tablets).

This does not count the infrastructure for the other six days per week: where do the rector (vicar) and parish staff hang out when there’s no worship service?

2. Liturgical Choices

The other key choices relate to worship and liturgy:

• Preferred Bible translation. The churches I visit tend towards ESV or RSV, but there may be some KJV, ASV, NIV, NRSV or other translations being used instead. (The CoE has listed 7 translations as being suitable). Are there printed books in the pews? (A good sign) Are they used? Do you need the Apocrypha — if so, it’s not available for the NIV or NKJV.
• Prayer Book. For US readers, I’m assuming the choices are the 1928 Book of Common Prayer or Rite I of the 1979 prayer book (the latter so flawed it prompted Schism I); to these two I’d add the 2003 REC prayer book which combines elements of the 1662 and US prayer books†. Some may consider the 1662 CoE BCP or — at the other extreme — the recent ACNA trial use liturgy, and some parishes will use a mixture of services.
• Alternate Variants of Key Prayers. In some liturgies, there are choices to include or omit passages, such as the General Confession vs. Confession Lite. Some congregations insist on reciting “we believe” in the Nicene Creed while others adhere to centuries of tradition and shared theological understanding.
• Lectionary. ACNA does not yet have its own lectionary, so the most likely choices seem to be Cranmer’s one-year lectionary (as embodied in 1549, 1552, 1559, 1662, 1896 and 1928 BCP), or the three year lectionary of the 1979 prayer book or the RCL.
• Hymnal. For US Anglicans, the choices seem to be Hymnal 1940, Hymnal 1982 or none. (I have seen parishes that use third party hymnals such as the Celebration Hymnal). The Anglo-Catholic parishes (with 1928 or Rite I) choose H40, while the parishes that split Rite I/Rite II (50/50, 60/40 or 40/60) parishes go with H82, and the rock band churches don’t need one at all.  To date, there is no service music exactly aligned to the ACNA liturgy, although in principle the changes for the contemporary H82 service music should be minor.
• Chanting (Service Music). Holy Communion potentially includes sung versions of the Kyrie (English or Latin) or Trisagion, Gloria, Psalm, Nicene Creed, Sanctus/Benedictus, Lord’s Prayer and Agnus Dei (not counting the Sursum Corda and other responsorial sentences). Which ones will be spoken, which ones chanted — and for those, what setting do you use? H40 has four (later eight) settings of the Kyrie+Gloria+Sanctus+Agnus Dei while H82 has four for Rite I and many more for Rite II. However, more important than matching the hymnal is having a familiar and stable set of choices (probably no more than 3 different liturgies in 12 months).

Of course, these have implications for the paid and volunteer staffing: priest(s), deacon(s), acolyte(s), lay readers, musicians, and others involved in the liturgy. My experience has been it’s virtually impossible to put on a traditional high mass (sung service) without a pianist or organist. (The Substitute Organ Service is designed for vacation relief and is not cost-effective for weekly use).

Defining Your Vision

When I spoke to veteran Anglo-Catholic church planter Fr. Chris Culpepper, he says he wish he had this list when he started his first parish in January 2008. IMHO, any church founder (lay, clerical) needs to decide personally which of these choices are essential, which are desirable and which are open. For example, in my own mind — and many that whose counsel I respect — the availability and use of kneeling is essential for creating a church that is contemplative, reverent and prayerful.

Once you have your own list, the planting team needs to bring their ideas together to discuss their corresponding hopes and vision. It is impossible to move forward unless this team can come to a common position on the nature of the church they are planting — and not only agree, but fully support the vision rather seek to undermine it or re-open key choices.

In talking with church planters, this part of an articulated vision going forward as the church grows and evolves. (That’s not to say that such choices are the entire vision, only key practicalities of defining what sort of church is being planted — and what will be needed to implement that church.)

At the same time, there is an important constituency not at the table: the future members who make the parish a success. WW II Archbishop of Canterbury William Temple (1881-1944) said: “The Church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members.” The vision should allow for flexibility, modification and extension to meet the needs and desires of the future members. For example, a H40 parish will use hymns from H82 (such as Amazing Grace or  Bread of Life) and many 28BCP or Rite I parishes offer a modern language service.

Conclusion

I don’t know that these are all the questions, but this list seems to cover most of the alternatives facing the teams that are launching a new parish from scratch.

The case of new TEC exiles is slightly different. In my travels, it appears that congregations that have lost their building tend to carry over #2 from their TEC days, while making new choices for #1 based on their budget (and sometimes an attempt to re-create what they once had).

† Note: corrected per feedback from Rev. Daniel Sparks.

ACNA needs repentance even more than TEC

Note update based on October 2013 revised ACNA liturgy.

For Lent 2, the RCL reading was Luke 13:1-9, where Jesus says “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” and then tells the parable of the fig tree. Our pastor used it to preach a blunt sermon about repentance.

Unfortunately, this was the Sunday he decided to use the “Contemporized Version: Trail Edition December 2012” of the new ACNA liturgy. I’ll save the arguments about the overall pros and cons for another time.

What was stunning — stunningly awful — was how we responded to his altar call for repentance in this new (“trial use”) corporate worship.

The Confession and Absolution of Sins
Celebrant: We pray to you also for the forgiveness of sins.
Celebrant and People:Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father;
in your compassion forgive us our sins,
known and unknown, things done and left and undone;
and so uphold us by your Spirit
that we ay live and serve you in newness of life,
to the honor and glory of your Name;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

I was not the only person to point out to our pastor that this was a notably brief and thin confession. (Even his wife said so). But, more importantly, if you look closely, it’s not a confession at all. It’s like a little boy who says “please forgive me” without first saying that “I was wrong.”

Compare this to the 1662 BCP:

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men;
We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness,
Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed,
By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty,
Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation againſt us.
We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings;
The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable.
Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father;
For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, forgive us all that is past;
And grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life,
To the honor and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The words are the same as I recited since childhood from the 1928 (US) Book of Common Prayer, and was also preserved in Rite I (at least as the approved variant) in Rite I of the 1979 prayer book. (Except for the “Amen” and medieval spelling, the same words are also found in Cranmer’s 1549 BCP).

Most surprisingly, the proposed ACNA liturgy is even less substantial than the watered down Rite II (Confession Lite) in the 1979 prayer book:

Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against you
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We are truly sorry and we humbly repent. For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in your will,
and walk in your ways,
to the glory of your Name. Amen.

At least the Rite II worshipers say “we confesses that we have sinned against you in thought, word and deed,” unlike what the ACNA liturgists are proposing we say.

In the Church of England’s 2000 book of alternative services, Common Worship, there are four different communion services. Order One resembles our US Rite II, whether in contemporary wording (p. 169) or traditional (p. 209). Order Two (traditional, p. 237) parallels the 1662 BCP, while the contemporary (p. 257) shows that Cranmer’s confession can be expressed in 21st century language:

Almighty God,
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
maker of all things, judge of all people,
we acknowledge and lament our many sins
and the wickedness we have committed time after time, by thought, word and deed against your divine majesty. We have provoked your righteous anger
and your indignation against us.
We earnestly repent,
and are deeply sorry for these our wrongdoings;
the memory of them weighs us down,
the burden of them is too great for us to bear.
Have mercy upon us,
have mercy upon us, most merciful Father.
For your Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake,
forgive us all that is past;
and grant that from this time forward
we may always serve and please you in newness of life, to the honor and glory of your name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

This is essentially the same language (I haven’t compared it word for word) that Peter Toon and the Prayer Book Society used in An Anglican Prayer Book, their 2008 update of the 1662 BCP for AMiA.

As Toon noted, the trends has been away from a Book of Common Prayer to a series of books of alternative services, with local option to choose among the many variants. As such, a thin gruel for confession seems inevitable for ACNA: but there’s no reason it should be less than our TEC brethren — or that it should drop the centuries-old theology as expressed in contemporary language.

Ever since I came back to the church in my 30s, the confession has been the most powerful moment of the service, when we “acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness.” It was only later, as I studied Lutheran and Reformed theology, that I realized that this personal confession of sinfulness was (at least for some traditions) the essence of the Protestant faith.

I know that mega-church pastors don’t want to use the “s” word. But ACNA, even its evangelical wing? It’s time for the ACNA Liturgy Task Force to repent of its efforts to water down the millennia-old worship and theology that is part of our shared Christian heritage.

Update: The Texts for Common Prayer (released October 2013) correct this problem with a more theologically sound confession and even the “s” word:

The Deacon or other person appointed says the following
All who truly and earnestly repent of your sins, and seek to be reconciled with your neighbors, and intend to lead the new life, following the commandments of God, and walking in his holy ways: draw near with faith and make your humble confession to Almighty God.

Silence

The Deacon and People kneel as able and pray
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
maker and judge of us all:
We acknowledge and repent of our many sins and offenses, which we have committed by thought, word, and deed,
against your divine majesty,
provoking most justly your righteous anger against us.
We are deeply sorry for these transgressions.
The burden of them is more than we can bear.
Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father;
for your Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake,
forgive us all that is past;
and grant that we may evermore serve and please you in newness of to the honor and glory of your Name;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This correction renders moot (makes obsolete) the earlier criticisms of the draft ACNA liturgy.

Peter Toon, 1939-2009

The Rev. Dr. Peter Toon died Saturday in San Diego, as the consequence of a degenerative disease called amyloidosis.

Toon was the president of the Prayer book Society of the USA, and probably this country’s leading expert on the book of Common Prayer. Last year, he prepared a modern language version of the 1662 BCP for the Evangelical wing of the Continuing Anglican community.

Toon’s skills would be greatly in demand during this period of Anglican realignment. We will certainly miss his talents, although our loss pales compared to that of his wife and daughter.

Anglican, Christian, or both?

In November, I offered up a 2x2 typology of Anglican liturgy and theology, in which I place my interests in the Anglo-Catholic quadrant. It seems to me that most of the Anglo-Catholics are those who left PECUSA left in the 1970s, before the 1979 prayer book and 1982 Hymnal. Meanwhile, those leaving recently tend to be more evangelical — but in the past 30 years adopted Rite II and praise music before heading for the exits.

Of course, the 2x2 typology is oversimplified. The theology part has much more nuance than just old/new “Christianity”. Heck, back in the 16th century Protestantism had the Lutherans and the Calvinists (Reformed, Presbyterian), and this was before Henry VIII and Elizabeth I gave us the Anglo-Catholic fudge that created the Church of England — let alone the rise of the Baptists, Congregationalists and Methodists, or the 19th century Evangelical movement.

Still, 50 or 100 years ago the variation between liturgical Protestant churches in America was not so very dramatic, particularly since all the hymnals would have an entry by Luther, Wesley and Watts. Across Christianity, there would be Catholic and Orthodox high church worship, a less high church liturgical worship, or a non-liturgical Bible church. On theology, the major heresies were long gone — there would be debates about real presence, or works righteousness vs. salvation by faith, but not about the divinity of Christ or the primacy of Scripture.

All of this is a long-winded way of my wondering whether there are three dimensions but not two: theology, liturgy and music. My rethinking of what constitutes “Anglican worship” was prompted by my visit this morning to a church very much outside my Anglo-Catholic comfort zone. The service this morning was at the Kanata Lakes Fellowship in West Ottawa, an Evangelical “Anglican” church that I heard about from David Virtue’s online news site.

The new parish (begun two weeks ago) is a reaction to the struggles in Canada within the Anglican Church in Canada, struggles that exactly parallel those in the US within TEC. Talking to the parishioners, they clearly draw inspiration from American leaders like Bishop Schofield.

The theological bonafides of KLF are not in question. The new parish is one of three in Ottawa aligned with the Anglican Network Canada. (ANC is headed by Bp. Don Harvey, retired ACC Bishop of Newfoundland). Two of the Ottawa parishes are still in the ACC, but KLF hopes to go straight to the ANC, joining two former ACC parishes in New Westminster (British Columbia). As in the US, the national church has been drifting slowly left for 50 years, but the exodus is accelerating in dioceses with aggressively revisionist bishops.

The service was led by Brian DeVisser, a graduate of the Wycliffe College at U. Toronto. After getting the drift of the ACC seminary’s theology, Brian chose not be ordained in the ACC but hopes to be ordained into the ANC. His sermon (like last week) was on Paul’s letter to the Colossians (this week Colossians 2:6-19), focusing on the sufficiency of Christ without additional works, ritual, or adherence to earthly rules.

In this regard, the theology of our prayer leader was clearly based on scripture (without much regard for the rest of the “stool”, i.e. tradition or reason). This reminded me of a BIble study, or the sermon in a non-denominational Bible church. While “evangelical” (whatever that means), its focus on the original Scriptural meaning and eternal salvation certainly puts it at the other extreme not only from the social Gospel of the TEC/ACC, but also from Joel Osteen (and others) who try to claim that reading the Bible can bring you riches on earth.

On the other hand, the worship style was fairly modern, as proclaimed on the cover of the service booklet:

Kanata Lakes Fellowship is an independent, evangelical church in the Anglican tradition.

Music leader Tony Copple used his electric guitar to lead singing of one hymn (“Beneath the Cross of Jesus” to the tune St. Christopher) and four praise songs. One of the praise songs, “As the Deer”, exactly fit the praise song stereotype of love songs to Jesus:

As the deer pants for the water, so my soul longs after you;
you alone are my heart’s desire, and I long to worship you. …
I want you more than gold or silver, even though you are a king;
I love you more than any other, so much more than anything.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the theology of praise music. However, in my limited understanding of Scripture, the God (in three persons) of the 1st, 11th or 19th century is omniscient and omnipotent, our Lord and savior, not a substitute for a spouse or significant other.

In addition to theology and music, a church is distinguished by its liturgy. The spoken part of today’s liturgy, a “Contemporary Service of Morning Prayer,” was based on a similar service by St. Alban’s (ACC/ANC) in Ottawa The prayers included the creed and the Lord’s Prayer, in modern renditions more akin to the Rite II versions of the US prayer book.

Between music and prayers, the worship was thus very unfamiliar to me, although it would be quite familiar to parishioners of evangelical Common Cause parishes (including, perhaps, Bp. Robert Duncan’s home parish). The theology was undeniably Christian, so where does it fit in the Anglican tradition?

Conversely, there are Christian churches that still use the great hymns and the Bible, but don’t do creeds, kyries or kneeling. A Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ parish might fit this model. So while traditional liturgy and hymns seemed to come as a package within the Anglican faith, they are clearly separable within the broader realm of biblically-based Christian worship.

This goes straight to the matter of the boundaries of Anglicanism. Rev. Peter Toon — the president of the Prayer Book Society USA and self-appointed arbiter of the Anglican faith — has been on a tear about two things. First, neither the US 1979 prayer book (nor any other experiments authorized by Lambeth 1968) is not a “Book of Common Prayer” but an “Alternative Service Book” because it is not faithful to the 1549 or 1662 BCP of the Church of England. Second, churches not in communion with Canterbury should not call themselves “Anglican.”

Today’s worship convinced me that Toon has it half right: parishes that use the BCP are Anglican, as long as it is a service that would be recognizable to Cranmer. This is a doctrinal rather than institutional definition of Anglicanism, analogous to that of Lutheranism or Calvinism rather than Catholicism. If the institution drifts doctrinally, then the definition should stay with the doctrinal (rather than property) heirs.

In Canada, the 1962 BCP would fit Toon’s definition of a prayer book, while the modernized 1980 Book of Alternative Services would not. Today was not a BCP service — so was it really Anglican?

To argue the point more generally, from an institutional standpoint, why would praise worship Christianity be Anglican? We already have non-denominational evangelical parishes adding the Nicene Creed to modern worship, so how is this any different? Other than having Bishops (and apostolic succession), why are the non-BCP parishes trying to be Anglican rather than Calvary Chapel? (Particularly if Calvary Chapel has more parishes, members and resources than biblical evangelical Anglicans).

If Common Cause eventually throws out the 1979 prayer book and goes back to the 1662 original — with or without the “thees” and “thous” — that would be Toonian liturgy. Presumably (unlike Rite II) that would include a confession of sin prior to communion, no matter how bad that might be for business.

A party, a philosophy, an ideology, a social movement — or a religion — is meaningless without boundaries that define what’s inside and what’s outside. It’s not for me to set the boundaries, or to push out members of the tenuous Common Cause coalition. But if we don’t share a prayer book and a hymnal — in addition to interpretations of scripture — would we really all be one church?