Is reformation doctrine in support of a Eucharistic presence of Christ (not affirming parading or special pleading) or not? The US church was formed within this debate. I would expect their formularies would represent it.

However, 450 years later, we are in a period of ecumenical liturgies, and it is not a bad thing for Anglicans to come out of their shell a bit and use a shape that all Christians share together. The shape of the 1979 BCP is widely known in Roman, Lutheran, Method-ist and now Presbyterian gatherings. Even many evangelicals have studied this same shape, as they have read and been affected by the works of Robert Webber, which have had a significant impact among them and has led to a veritable renewal in worship theology. It may be stated that common worship has never been shared more widely.

So it is not the time, because of some ill conceived portions of the 1979 BCP, to sneak back into an Anglican nostalgia as comfortable as that may be, because the 1979 BCP recovers a better pattern, shape or form; a second century pattern of the pre-Roman rite. This was preserved in, of all places, Toledo (Spain, not Ohio).

It was maintained against all attempts to squash it, as Roman rule and rite made uniformity instead of unity the rule. This is important because of its relationship to the earlier shape and because Cranmer found great inspiration in other Roman Catholic biblical and liturgical reforms in Spain under Cardinal Quiñones. Even at that time Cranmer used a variety of materials to reform the current practice.

Some language, order and pastoral theology of the 1662 BCP makes little sense to me as a reformed, catholic Christian. I have recently prayed for "ghostly strength" for confirmands and ordained someone to the "inferior ministry" of Deacon, beseeching the Lord, if possible one day, to elevate him to a higher plane. Unfortunately, the 1979 BCP erringly thinks that all ministries belong to the Bishop and the ordained (page 562).

It also regularly perpetuates the malformed language continuing another clear deficiency in the 1662 and reformation Prayer books as a whole (a lack of participation and language consonant with the priesthood of all believers); that only ministers minister while the congregation congregates (page 329 and in three of six Prayers of the People). Placing the Book in each hand is not enough, although a great start. The reformed shape actually prevents the congregation from ministering to each other the one day of the week the community gathers.

Who among us remembers the introduction of the Peace? It was not too long ago, but some maybe unaware. This was a huge controversy. It bludgeoned us into a community celebration and we had to leave behind the idea that worship is just me and God meeting together within the "Cone of Silence" that mystically descen-ded from heaven to each true believer. A private, almost secretive, personal worship that does not move one outside the walls, much less the pews (something Queen Elizabeth I would see in her private chapel) is what the reformed shape represents to me. Baptisms regularly took place in private on Saturday mornings. I could go on.

I appreciate the simple variations of Eucharistic and community prayer of the 1979 shape. It is not difficult to follow or to teach. The 1979 BCP recovers the solemn collects of Good Friday among other helps. It permits a principal liturgical use of the Creed and a sometime use of the Ten Commandments, variations not allowed in the 1928 BCP, but practiced anyway by Fr. So-and-so. It places the Lord's Prayer as an integral part of the community's Eucharistic prayer, not as an after-event. And I could go on and on.

Is the 1979 BCP technically a BCP? Yes it is as it provides one common shape or form with variations. There is absolutely no difficulty in entering a parish anywhere and understanding where you are in the rite and then entering into worship. On the other hand, it's not great because of some important deficiencies and manipulations, but these are theological, not mechanical. I, for one, do not want to return to a rite which only Anglicans can use or understand.

Another important issue, of course, is that societies in general are leaving behind any Book, whether it is Bible, Prayer Book or Hymnal, and we are now using screens. This is a change as great as that initiated by Gutenberg and we must deal with this challenge.

One hymnal suggests to me that we believe the gift of music and musicians halted in the sixteenth century (some hold earlier) and that we have not heeded the well documented reality of renewal throughout church history; the Spirit sends new hymnody in times of renewal. This does not mean that each piece of music will become a classic. We do not sing all 6,000+ of Charles Wesley's compositions. Neither do the Methodists. Pray tell who could figure which 23 might have had the best chance of being "valid" today. Where will new music be tried or practiced for the greater glory of God?

Another issue arises; Hispanic culture is more concerned with immanence than transcendence, but although this varies within contemporary Anglo cultures, our worship must present a balance. Where is the balance? This affects the recent, hot discussions of the celebrants' position: a return to eastward only; versus populus only; a balance; a return to the reformed settlement, northward; all of the above; or, none of the above.

Few have merit today, but the culture and the context have something to say about how each will be interpreted and understood or misunderstood. These issues affect all our discussions because we are not just talking about worship in the English language according to a refined English sensibility. We are a world-wide communion representing varied cultures and contexts, not British satellites, unless we decide to convert folks to English "good taste" before they can attain a true Anglicanism. Alas, this is regularly tried and found wanting.

There are definite reformation principles that need to be retained as the new structure goes radical, but the shape and lang-uage of the 1662 BCP does not represent the sum of them in today's multicultural and evangelical context. Common worship in the language of the people is a principle, but even the reformers in their infinite wisdom foresaw that our rites would vary from theirs.

--Bishop Frank Lyons is the Bishop of Bolivia

END