The Challenges of a Common Liturgy—Part 4
By Robin G. Jordan
A number of developments have influenced the evolution of
Anglican service books in the past 100 years. They include the Anglo-Catholic movement, the
ecumenical movement, the liturgical movement, the indigenization movement, the
charismatic renewal movement, feminism and the gender equality movement, the
gay-rights movement, the Ancient Future worship renewal movement, the
secularization of Western societies, the waning of Christianity and the decline
in church attendance in Western countries, the expansion of Christianity in
non-Western countries, and the rapid growth of digital information technology.
The last 100 years has been a significant period in Prayer Book revision. While
the influence of these developments has not impacted all provinces and dioceses
of the Anglican Church equally, all have felt their impact in one way or
another.
The decade after World War I would witness a spate of Prayer
Book revision. This Prayer Book revision would produce the 1918 Canadian Prayer
Book, the 1926 Irish Prayer Book, the 1928 American Prayer Book, the 1928
Proposed English Prayer Book, and the 1929 South African Prayer Book. The 1918 Canadian Prayer Book and the 1926
Irish Prayer Book were conservative revisions of the 1662 Book of Common
Prayer. The 1928 American Prayer Book, the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book,
and 1929 South African Prayer Book, on the other hand, introduced radical
changes in the Prayer Book. The 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book would prove
too radical for Parliament, which twice rejected the revision.
1958 would mark a major watershed in twentieth century
Prayer Book revision. The 1958 Lambeth Conference adopted four resolutions on
Prayer Book revision and a fifth resolution on the Holy Communion service.
In Resolution
73 the 1958 Lambeth Conference would commend to the study of all sections of
the Anglican Communion the Report of the Sub-committee on the Book of Common
Prayer on the subject of “the contemporary movement towards unanimity in
doctrinal and liturgical matters by those of differing traditions in the
Anglican Communion as a result of new knowledge gained from biblical and liturgical
studies.” In the second part of Resolution
74 the conference urged that “a chief aim of Prayer Book revision should be to
further that recovery of the worship of the primitive Church which was the aim
of the compilers of the first Prayer Books of the Church of England.” In
Resolution 75 the conference commended to the study of the whole Anglican
Communion “the counsel on Prayer Book revision given in the Report of the
Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer.”
Resolution 76 stated:
The Book of Common Prayer - The Holy Communion Service
The Conference requests the Archbishop of Canterbury, in co-operation with the Consultative Body, to appoint an advisory committee to prepare recommendations for the structure of the Holy Communion service which could be taken into consideration by any Church or Province revising its eucharistic rite, and which would both conserve the doctrinal balance of the Anglican tradition and take account of present liturgical knowledge.
These resolutions would open a floodgate of theological and
liturgical diversity. Among the recommendations the Sub-committee on the Book
of Common Prayer was that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer should no longer be
considered “the norm of doctrine and worship and uniting factor in the Anglican
Communion” as it had been before that time. The next 50 odd years would see a
proliferation of liturgies that bore no resemblance to the 1662 Book of Common
Prayer in language, doctrine, and liturgical usages.
It deserves special mention that the second part of 1958
Lambeth Conference’s Resolution 74 was based upon an argument used by the
Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer. In a Churchman article, “Lambeth
1958 and the ‘Liturgy for Africa’” Roger Beckwith examines this argument:
The final argument used by the committee is that Cranmer's aim was a recovery of the worship of the primitive church : in this he achieved notable success, but was hampered by having less knowledge about early Christian worship than we have today. This definition of Cranmer's aim is less than a half truth, as the prefaces "Concerning the Service of the Church " and " Of Ceremonies " in the Prayer Book sufficiently show. Cranmer's great concern was to restore worship to conformity with the Christian Gospel, as set forth in Holy Scripture, and to construct orderly and edifying services based on the principles and instructions which Scripture contains. Anything which had never subserved this end or had ceased to do so, however ancient, he discarded. He undoubtedly retained what was old in preference to substituting something new when the new would have been no better, and restored what was old when it was better than what was in use and better than anything he could devise himself. But it is clear that he would not have restored what was old just because it was old, though no better than what was in use : this would have been contrary to his principle of avoiding needless changes in existing customs (see the preface ·~Of Ceremonies", and cf. Article 34). Had Cranmer known all that is known today about early Christian worship, he might well have made more use of it at points where changes were then needed. But he would not have made use of this knowledge at points where changes were not then needed, and he would not have expected us to make use of it at points where, because of his work, changes are not needed today. His work may not always have been " primitive ", but, in whole or in part, it has held its ground in all branches of the Anglican Communion since their inception, and therefore, on the basis of his principles, it has now the same claim to be left standing as the harmless medievalisms which he left standing himself.
Beckwith goes on to point out:
In any case, if Cranmer "achieved notable success" in restoring the worship of the primitive church, as the committee says, why need his Prayer Book be wholly set aside by those who wish to carry the restoration further? It must always be remembered that a complete restoration of the worship of the primitive church would be impossible for, as A. Couratin remarks, when criticizing the committee's report at this point, the evidence from the first three centuries is still scanty, the ecclesiastical and social situation was then completely different, and theology was in an immature state (Lambeth and Liturgy, 1959, pp. Sf.).
The 2008 Jerusalem Declaration is in part a rejection of the
doctrinal and liturgical recommendations of the Report of the Sub-committee on
the Book of Common Prayer. With the declaration the first GAFCON Conference
sought to undo the damage that the 1958 Lambeth Conference would cause with its
endorsement of the sub-committee’s Report. It calls the Anglican Church back to
the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as the Anglican
standards for doctrine and worship.
The 1960s and 1970s in the United States would see the
production of series of experimental liturgies and trial services for use in
the Episcopal Church, which would culminate in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The
process of Prayer Book revision would prove divisive for American
Episcopalians. Some would welcome the new liturgies and services; others clung resolutely
to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The movement to ordain women and other
developments in the Episcopal Church would exacerbate the situation.
General Convention’s authorization of the 1979 Prayer Book
and women’s ordination would cause an exodus of Episcopalians unhappy with
these changes and the formation of the abortive first Anglican Church in North
American. The Continuing Anglicans as they would come to be called soon fell
out over doctrine and other matters. The first Anglican Church in North America
would quickly fragment into a welter of rival Continuing Anglican
jurisdictions.
A form of extreme Anglo-Catholicism would become the dominant
theology in most of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions. While these
jurisdictions would retain the 1928 Prayer Book as their official liturgy, in
the jurisdictions in which this form of Anglo-Catholicism was the dominant
theology, the texts and rubrics of the 1928 Prayer Book would be supplemented
by those of various editions of the Anglican Missal. The Anglican Missal would
become their standard of doctrine and worship.
A number of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions have
disappeared since the early days of the Continuing Anglican movement. The
remaining jurisdictions have seen a decline in the number of their clergy and
congregations with the shrinking of their population base due to attrition from
ill-health, death, and defection to the Roman Catholic Church.
During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth
century the Episcopal Church had developed an anti-evangelical identity that
associated evangelism with evangelicalism. The Continuers who were for a larger
part former Episcopalians shared this identity. They did not develop in their
churches the evangelistic culture that is essential to a church’s fulfillment
of the Great Commission and its subsequent growth.
The Continuing Anglican jurisdictions in starting new
congregations relied heavily on building these congregations around a core of
traditionalist Episcopalians unhappy with developments in the Episcopal Church.
They essentially targeted a very miniscule segment of the population. They also
relied on the appeal of what they touted as the traditional worship of the 1928
Prayer Book to attract additional members.
Due to their clergy’s use of various editions of the
Anglican Missal, worship of their churches went well beyond that of the 1928
Prayer Book. Even where only the 1928 Prayer Book was used, the worship of
Continuing Anglican churches would have limited appeal. It did not prove the
draw which Continuers though that it would: It did not cause people to flock to
their churches. The way they worshiped was too strongly associated in the
popular mind with Roman Catholicism. Their church services were tiresomely long
and the language used in the services unfamiliar. Other factors contributed to
their worship’s lack of appeal.
This miscalculation has resulted in the decline of the
Continuing Anglican jurisdictions as their clergy and their congregations have aged
and died. A new generation of Episcopalians unhappy with developments in their
denomination is accustomed to the 1979 Prayer Book. This generation has preferred
to form its own breakaway jurisdictions—the Anglican Mission in America and the
second Anglican Church in North America.
What has happened to the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions
shows how the choice of a service book can adversely affect the life and
ministry of a denomination.
The 1979 Book of Common Prayer has been in use for more than
three decades. The 1979 Prayer Book was a more substantial revision than its
predecessor. Like the 1928 Prayer Book , it shows the influence of the
nineteenth century Catholic Revival. It also shows the influence of the
twentieth century ecumenical and liturgical movements.
The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is the official Prayer Book
of the Episcopal Church. The 1979 Prayer Book enjoys wide use in the second
Anglican Church in North America and is used in a number of other
denominations. It is the most popular source of liturgies for the convergence
movement, a movement of evangelical and charismatic churches in the United
States, which blends charismatic worship with liturgical forms of service.
While retaining a number of services in traditional or Jacobean
English, the 1979 Prayer Book’s principal language is contemporary English—not
quite the vernacular but what can be described as “good liturgical English.” It introduces a number of new prayers and
rites and a new liturgical Psalter.
The 1979 Prayer Book emphasizes the centrality of the Holy
Eucharist to Christian worship. For celebrations of the Holy Eucharist the 1979
Prayer Book adopts the structure recommended by the 1958 Lambeth Conference’s Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer.
The doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice championed by the 1958
Lambeth Conference’s Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer is evident in the
1979 Prayer Book’s eucharistic prayers and catechism. This doctrine maintains
that the church participates in Christ’s ongoing sacrificial activities through
the celebration of the Eucharist. It has been critiqued by Roger Beckwith, J.
I. Packer, and others and shown to be inconsistent with the Scriptures and the
Thirty-Nine Articles.
The 1979 Prayer Book’s doctrine of eucharistic presence is
one of moderate realism. The wording of the four eucharistic prayers and the
words of administration in the Rite II Holy Eucharist and the second eucharistic prayer and the retention of the
1548 Order of Communion in the Rite I Eucharist point to a real presence of
Christ in the eucharistic elements. Both rites do not entirely exclude the twin
notions that the eucharistic elements undergo a change in substance and that
the Eucharist itself is a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice
on the cross.
The eucharistic doctrine of the 1979 Prayer Book is far
removed from that of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common
Prayer. It is a culmination of the movement of the American Prayer Book away
from the eucharistic doctrine of the classical Anglican formularies that began
with the Episcopal Church’s adoption of the 1789 Prayer Book and its subsequent
adoption of the 1804 revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The Episcopal Church
would not require clerical subscription to this revision. The 1979 Prayer Book
relegates the Thirty-Nine Articles to its historical documents section,
reflecting a common view in the Episcopal Church (and its latest offspring, the
second Anglican Church in North America) that the Thirty-Nine Articles is a
relic of the past.
While the 1979 Prayer Book has been criticized for the
emphasis that it gives to the baptismal covenant, the target of this criticism
is in actuality the liberal interpretation and application of this covenant and
not the book’s. The rubrics and wording of its baptismal rites permits two different
interpretations of these rites. One interpretation is that confirmation, as
understood in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, occurs with the anointing of the
newly-baptized with chrism, or blessed oil. In any event the position of the
1979 Prayer Book is that baptism is complete initiation into the Christian
Church. This position is consistent with the Scriptures and is one of the 1979
Prayer Book’s strong points.
Among the other strong points of the 1979 Prayer Book is
that metrical versions of the Invitatory Psalms, and of the Canticles after the
Readings, may be used at Morning and
Evening Prayer. In special circumstance, a hymn may be sung in place of a
Canticle. These provisions in the Additional Directions for Morning and Evening
Prayer are a boon to small congregations which lack the musical leadership,
acoustical environment, and/or voices to sing chant, which have a large number
of children in the congregation, or whose ministry target group shows no
affinity for plainsong or other forms of chant.
The most common method of reciting the Psalms in churches
used in Episcopal and Anglican churches is responsively. This is the most
boring, pedestrian, and uninteresting method of reciting the Psalms. Its use
accounts in part for the lackluster worship of small Episcopal and Anglican
congregations for whom Morning Prayer is the principal service on most Sundays
and whose circumstances prevents them from singing chant.
Morning and Evening Prayer may be used as the Liturgy of the
Word at a celebration of the Eucharist.
An Order of Worship for the Evening with the addition of
psalms, readings, canticles, hymns, and prayers may be used as an evening
service. This provides congregations with an alternative form of evening worship
in place of the Eucharist or Evening Prayer. The format is particularly
suitable for the use of house congregations and other small congregations
worshiping in unconventional settings.
The 1979 Prayer Book offers a number of options for the
entrance rite of the Eucharist. Among these options is that an Opening Acclamation may be said and a metrical version of a Canticle or hymn sung, after which the service may continue with the Collect of the Day. This simplified entrance rite is musically less demanding for small congregations than singing both a hymn and a Canticle. The offertory is free from the unnecessary
accretions that clutter this ancillary rite in a number of more recent Anglican
service books. The Eucharist moves quickly to a close after the distribution of
communion.
The first half of the Eucharist through the Prayers of the
People may be used as a separate Service of the Word on Sundays and other
occasions where there is no celebration of Holy Communion. A collection may be
taken after the Prayers of the People and the service concluded with the the
Lord’s Prayer, the General Thanksgiving, and the Grace.
This option permits
congregations that are accustomed to a weekly celebration of the Eucharist to
use a familiar service in the absence of a priest. The service may be led by a
deacon or licensed lay reader. It also provides an alternative form of morning
worship for congregations with a large number of unbaptized adults and children.
It offers the advantage of familiarizing them with the worship format that they
are most likely find in other churches using the 1979 Prayer Book. People are
inclined to prefer the worship format with which they are most familiar. In
addition, the service provides an option for congregations that simply wish to
gather as God’s people around the God’s Word on Sundays and other occasions.
The 1979 Prayer Book also provides directions for informal
celebrations of the Eucharist—sometimes dubbed “Rite III.” These directions
include two forms which may be used to prepare eucharist prayers for use with
these celebrations. The rite’s major drawback, beside the wording of these
two forms, is that it may not be used at
the principal Sunday or weekly celebration of the Eucharist. The directions for
the rite may also not be used to craft an informal Service of the Word. These
restrictions greatly limit its usefulness.
Among the weak points of the 1979 Prayer Book is that the
services of Morning and Evening Prayer do not permit the omission of everything
after the Salutation, “The Lord be with you,” if the Litany or another general
intercession is used. The omission of the Suffrages and the Collects is a
common feature of the more recent Anglican service books when the Litany or
another general intercession is used for the Prayers. This keeps the service
from becoming overly long and burdensome and eliminates redundant elements from
the service. It also applies the general liturgical principle, “less is more.”
The 1979 Prayer Book contains no provisions for alternative
forms of morning worship other than those already noted. While the Episcopal
Church has produced a number of new rites since the adoption of the 1979 Prayer
Book, it has not produced any new forms for regular services of public worship.
The focus of the supplemental liturgical material in Enriching Our Worship 1 is the use of gender-inclusive language and
feminine imagery of God in the Eucharist.
A Prayer Book for What? The Challenges of a Common Liturgy—Part 3
A Compendium of More Recent Anglican Liturgies
A Prayer Book for Where? The Challenges of a Common Liturgy—Part 2
A Prayer Book for Whom? The Challenges of a Common Liturgy—Part 1
No comments:
Post a Comment