The Nicene Creed in the New ACNA BCP: Too 1979 (UPDATED)

There has been a robust but irenic debate over at North American Anglican about whether the new ACNA Book of Common Prayer is more in line with the 1662 BCP tradition or with the 1979 BCP. You can check that out here, here and here, and I will defer to those articles.

But there is at least one instance in which the new BCP is too 1979 for me – the beginning of the Nicene Creed, the first word to be exact: “We.”

The 1662 and the 1928 Creed begins, “I believe….” The 1979 begins, “We believe….” And we all know the history of those many Episcopal Church clerics who dissemble every time they say the Creed. That “We” gave them something of an out.  For they are not asserting that “I” – they themselves individually – believe, but that “we believe” – this is the belief of the church.

Although such Jesuitical deception is surely rare to non-existent in the Anglican Church in North America, and the Liturgy Task Force surely had no intent to enable such, most of ACNA came out of The Episcopal Church.  So why bring that sordid history into the new Book of Common Prayer?  And if the new ACNA BCP is oh-so in the 1662 tradition, then why does the Creed begin with “We” instead of the more traditional “I”?

Now I am well aware there is a school that has the original Creed beginning with the plural.  Further, a case can be made that “We” better reflects that this is the confession of the whole faithful church.  But the Latin from time immemorial began with Credo – singular.  The 1662 and the 1928 stuck with that.  Given that “I” is more committal and has less loopholes and less bad recent history than “We”, the ACNA 2019 BCP should also have stuck with that good Anglican tradition.

----

NOTE: For those thinking I am carping after the fact without having expressed my views during the trial phase, among the recommendations I made to the Liturgy Task Force was the following:

…It may be wise to go over . . . parts of the proposed ACNA BCP that have their origin in the 1979, to examine those parts and ask, “Is this really an improvement over the traditional 1662/1928 Book of Common Prayer?” Probably, you have already done this.  It might be good to do it again anyway.

------

UPDATE:

Elsewhere a member of the Liturgy Task Force has commented on my post:

No question there was a good deal of feedback on this subject. For the record, of everything in the new BCP, the Nicene Creed is the one that the Liturgy Task Force had the *least* say in. The College of Bishops made a de novo translation from the Greek text of Constantinople in 381 (pisteuomen - “we believe”). The later Latin and even the Greek liturgical usage does have the singular, but not the original. Of course, the Latin also added the filioque, the treatment of which in the bishops’ translation alone should point to the fact that it’s a new translation. Still, the LTF was not given discretion to address the subject.

Like it or hate it, there are two errors of assumption in this article - 1) that it was the choice of the LTF, and 2) that it was a decision based on the 1979 (or the ecumenical ICET from which the 79 came).

That is helpful information. I confess I was not aware that the College of Bishops so intervened and would have written my post differently if I was.  

Although I respect the bishops’ decision and effort to get as close to the original as possible, I think they took too much upon themselves.  It would have been simpler, better and more respectful of Anglican tradition to return to the 1662 version of the Creed.

And the LTF had very prominent bishops as its chair and vice-chair, so the LTF does not completely get off the hook. And did the other members protest? I do not know.  

And whether and how much the 1979 BCP nonetheless influenced the College of Bishops or perhaps even made some hesitant to return to “We”, I am not a mind reader nor a fly on the wall of their meetings. I still do think the bad recent history of “We” perhaps should have been given more weight.

Oh well.  My diocese will stick to “I”, thank you.

ACNA BCP: The Summary of the Law

Now I will nitpick make further comments on the working ACNA Book of Common Prayer.  (You will recall that I began by commending its revised treatment of the filioque.)  Again, downloads of the new BCP may be found here.

In looking at the Holy Eucharist, the first thing that stood out to me was . . . an article, in the Summary of the Law which reads as follows:

Jesus said: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22:37-40

Leaving aside, at least for now, the issue of modern language, “a second” struck me as odd.  Now I looked and did notice that good Bible translations differ on whether to render Jesus’ words “the second” or “a second.”  I’m no Greek scholar, but I suspect that is because the original Greek implies articles more than spells them out as in English.  But “a second” is a legitimate translation.

But the traditional Book of Common Prayer renders it “the second,” and I think that much preferable.  The context of Jesus words clearly indicates he was not talking about merely a second commandment in numerical order or a commandment among several secondary commandments.  He was stating that “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is the second most important commandment.  “The second” better reflects that than “a second”.

Plus “the second commandment” parallels and sounds better paired with “the great and first commandment”.  And the sound and structure of liturgical language should always be a consideration if a secondary one.

I was not privy to the discussions behind the working ACNA BCP, but I see little good reason to depart from the traditional BCP rendering, “the second commandment.”

ACNA Restores the Filioque

Back in June, I expressed concern about the draft ACNA Book of Common Prayer reducing the filioque of the Nicene Creed to a footnote.  I noted that greater unity with our Orthodox friends motivated the draft but that I thought it a step too far that would harm overall Christian unity more than help it as unhappiness at the time was indicating.  I instead advocated retaining the filioque but in parentheses. 

Well, the working ACNA BCP has been released.  And I am glad to see the revised BCP does just that.  Kudos to those overseeing the process for this wise decision.

The ACNA BCP is now a working document subject to input and revision.  So I intend to do my part and look it over and comment.  I may post some comments here.