IS RITE I "ANTI-CHRIST"?

In the recent 26-minute video that he distributed to the vestry of the Cathedral Church of the Advent, and to some dozen others, the Rev. Canon Zac Hicks makes the shocking claim that part of Rite I in The Book of Common Prayer is anti-Christ and against the Gospel. He argues that the parish should retain its in-house "Our Liturgy" instead of returning to the BCP Rite I. He claims that Our Liturgy corrects the errors of Rite I. It was introduced several years ago under Dean Andrew Pearson in a sweep to move the church far into the realm of evangelical religion. It has been the standard liturgy at the Advent for the past several years in place of the BCP.

The issue now in the Advent is whether to keep Our Liturgy or return entirely to the BCP.

Hicks offers his video in an effort to preserve Our Liturgy in the Advent. Specifically, he argues that Our Liturgy rightfully moves immediately from the institution of the communion to the reception of the bread and wine while Rite I makes an enormous gap and inserts man into the gap with "our prayers" and "our works." He says there should be no distance between institution and communion because our communion is by faith alone. [Actually, Hicks is not correct to say that Our Liturgy moves immediately from institution to reception; it has the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access between the two.]

So, I went back and examined the differences between Rite I and Our Liturgy (available on the Advent website) on the parallel parts between the institution and the distribution of the bread and wine. How wide is the gap that Hicks claims in Rite I? What are the words and prayers in the gap? Is the gap filled with man-centered thoughts? Finally, is the gap anti-Christ and anti-Gospel as Hicks said? This is serious stuff that calls for serious examination.

In Rite I, the institution starts on p. 334 with "For in the night in which he was betrayed, he took bread...Likewise after supper, he took the cup..." Our Liturgy has this, then jumps to the Lord's Prayer, the Prayer of Humble Access, and the distribution. So, what Hicks called the gap is the space between the institution and the Lord's Prayer. Here is what Rite I provides in the "gap" that Our Liturgy omits:

Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Savior Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before they divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial they Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to here us; and, of they almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. [underlined part is transferred in Our Liturgy to immediately before the institution]

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of the Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of they Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.

And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounded duty and service, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offenses, through Jesus Christ our Lord;

By whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. AMEN.

Rite I then follows with the Lord's Prayer, The Breaking of the Bread, the Prayer of Humble Access, and the distribution.

Our Liturgy jumps from institution, to Lord's Prayer, the Prayer of Humble Access, and the distribution. It leaves out all of the italicized text which I have given above. 

We may call the italicized text above "the gap" to use Hick's term. He claims that this gap is the part that is anti-Christ and anti the Gospel and therefore Our Liturgy was right to remove it in order to restore a Gospel-centered ceremony.

So, the question before us: Is Hicks right? Is the gap anti-Christ? Does it put man in the place of Christ? is it anathema to the Gospel?

Just speaking for myself, of course, I must confess I have no idea what Hicks is talking about. "The gap" is all about man receiving the Christ. There is nothing anti-Christ. There is nothing anti-Gospel here. He made these sweeping assertions without offering any specific evidence. He offers no evidence because there is no evidence. His claims have nothing to back them up. This is the way I see it. 

I ask you, dear reader, what do you think? Reading over "the gap" do you see anything to substantiate Hicks's assertions? Do you think Rite I is anti-Christ and anti-Gospel?

My conclusion is that Hicks's outrageous claim that Rite I is against the Gospel of Jesus Christ is false. The gap in no way puts man in the place of God. It does not separate us from the communion. 

In short, Hicks's claims in his video should be discarded as groundless nonsense. 

In fact, Rite I is the result of centuries of Anglican theology and scholarship. It comes with the collective wisdom and validity of history. It is the liturgy of the church. Any assertion that this liturgy is against the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be repelled forthwith.