(Really, anyone can read this, but if you are from a less liturgical tradition than TEC you are probably going to laugh or just be disgusted at this...)
Recently, I heard a sermon in an Anglican church. The general point of the sermon was (as I heard it), "You need to read the Bible for yourself...not just what other people have written about the Bible."
Okay so far.
In making the point, the preacher averred that Rite II in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) is "devoid of God's word" while Rite I is "completely God's word." (I wrote these phrases down on my bulletin so as to get them right).
Of course, I grew up with the idea that the BCP is all drawn from scripture.
I realize that I am likely to be defensive about such a statement, especially coming from that source and implying, as it does to me, that any change from Rite I (which is very similar to the 1928 BCP I grew up with) is wrong and a modernization to fit the culture. This is a preacher who also doesn't believe that women should be ordained to ministry. Again, I am likely to be prepared to disagree.
THE QUESTION:
Before I go doing a big study of Rite II in comparison with Rite I (which I plan to), I would like to know if there is some "school of thought" that agrees with his statements? I'd like to have all the information (beyond my own reading of scripture and the BCP) before I write back to this person.
SO WHAT?:
Why am I bothering with this, bothering YOU with this?
As you've heard me say, "Words Matter." The words of the BCP are important to me. And I want to know what right this person thinks he has to make such an utterly categorical claim. Please understand, he is a true scholar of the Bible and I have much respect for him...while we disagree wildly on many matters. I believe we've crossed paths for a reason (that has to do with me learning and understanding more).
Thanks! :)
Your (Evil Progressive Episcopal) Friend
