The Standing Liturgical Commission
Diocesan Press Service. November 3, 1972 [72167]
RIGHT REVEREND FATHERS IN GOD:
The Standing Liturgical Commission asks your kind consideration of the following statement, which was requested by your Agenda Committee, on the subject of Prayer Book revision.
The Process
The revision of the Book of Common Prayer has been the subject of consideration by the last three General Conventions. In 1964 (St. Louis) the Convention requested the Standing Liturgical Commission to prepare a plan for revision/ using the procedures set forth in the revised Article X of the Constitution/2: trial use of proposed revisions of parts, or of the whole, of the Book. In 1967 (Seattle) the Commission's plan for revision was adopted/3, and the experimental use of The Liturgy of the Lord's Supper (Prayer Book Studies XVII) was authorised/4.
In 1970 (Houston), the General Convention authorized for experimental trial use in the ensuing triennium the services published in Prayer Book Studies 18-24-- the results of the first stage in the preparation of a draft Revised Book of Common Prayer./5
From 1967 to the present, the process of revision has involved the active co-operation of an increasing number of consultants (200 persons in 1967, and now nearly 300). Some 80 consultants serve on the various Drafting Committees responsible for revising the several rites in the Prayer Book; the larger number participate through correspondence with the Drafting Committees and the Commission itself. The consultants include members of both clergy and laity and are drawn from every segment of the Church's population. In addition, the diocesan liturgical committees have helped enormously by conducting surveys of parish responses, by collating the numerous comments and suggestions from individual parishioners, and by channeling their evaluations to the Commission.
The Standing Liturgical Commission has given careful thought to the question of bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the task assigned to it by the General Convention in such a way as to do justice both to the widespread interest in the work of revision, and to the anxiety on the part of many members of the Church as to the final results.
The Commission's Timetable
After assessing the work that has already been accomplished and the work that remains to be completed, including such revisions of Services for Trial Use as may seem necessary and desirable in the light of the Church's actual experience, and bearing in mind also the need to give adequate time for sufficient consideration of a proposed Revised Book of Common Prayer, the Commission proposes the following schedule:
1. October 1976 to be the date of the first constitutional action to revise the Book of Common Prayer. This presupposes that the 65th General Convention would meet in 1976, rather than in 1975. The Commission decided to petition the House of Bishops to make such a recommendation to. the 1973 General Convention (Full text of the Commission's resolution of 26 September 1972 is appended);
2. That all the work of the Commission be completed by October 1975, i.e. a full twelve months before the 65th General Convention;
3. That the draft Proposed Book of Common Prayer be published in April 1976, i.e. six months before the 65th General Convention.
4. That the 64th General Convention (1973) be petitioned to extend trial use over the ensuing convention period, i.e. 1974-1976;
5. That the advice of the House of Bishops be sought as to the following alternative procedures:
a. That a Special General Convention of not less than three days' duration be called immediately before the meeting of the 65th General Convention for the sole purpose of considering Prayer Book revision; or
b. That a special Order of Business, extending over not less than two days be requested for the same purpose, the said Order to be set as early as possible in the agenda of the regular 65th General Convention.
Under this timetable, assuming that the 65th General Convention might act favorably on the constitutional proposal to adopt a Revised Book of Common Prayer, the final-constitutional action could be taken by the 66th General Convention in either 1978 or 1979.
The Experience of Trial Use
The reactions to the extensive experiment of inviting all members of the Church to share in the process of Prayer Book revision have been, as expected, very mixed. The General Convention provided no guidelines, and patterns of experiment have varied a great deal from diocese to diocese and parish to parish, depending largely upon the leadership, attitudes, and interest of the Bishops and other clergy. The diocesan liturgical commissions have been for the most part diligent and very helpful in guiding the process in their several dioceses. The questionnaires prepared by them on the trial rites are even now in process of being distributed and tabulated. Their results will not begin to be available before December 1972.
The Commission has also received a large volume of communications from individual clergymen and lay persons, some merely expressing feelings pro or con with varying degrees of vehemence, but many making value suggestions in detail.
It is quite understandable that reactions to Prayer Book revision should be so varied and mixed. It has always been so in every revision of the liturgy. The pressures on all sides are no different in character from those that attended our American revisions of 1789, 1892, and 1928. What is different about this revision is that the entire Church has been invited and encouraged to engage in the process by active participation, through live acts of corporate worship.
For its part, the Commission has listened attentively to the reactions and suggestions of the Church. As early as 1969, at Notre Dame, within two years of the beginning of the trial use of The Liturgy of the Lord's Supper, the Commission recommended certain amendments in this rite, in direct response to the voluminous preliminary reactions from the members of the Church/6, and the rites in Services for Trial Use were prepared with due attention to the views expressed during the whole triennium. Further revisions of these services, especially the Daily Offices, as well as the preparation of other services, alternatives to the Institution of Rectors, the Consecration of Churches, etc., as well as the Catechism will also take into account the trial use, of services authorised in 1970. It seems important not to curtail the process of listening to the views of church members in the revision of the Prayer Book.
For many the very uncertainty of the outcome has been upsetting and repellent; for many others it has been exhilarating and rewarding. In every reform movement in the Church we meet those who are resistant, indifferent, and enthusiastic. But matters of common worship involve deep-seated emotions and habits. To the extent that negative reactions are an evidence of profound involvement of many Church members in the prayer life of the Church, these concerns and anxieties are to be greatly valued and respected. At the same time, much of the negative reaction from individual worshipers has reflected some fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of trial use and the constitutional processes of revision., The Commission has made every effort to remove these misunderstandings, though not always with conspicuous success. Clearly, 'he d6-operation in this area of Bishops and other clergymen' and ' Church leaders is greatly to be desired.
Principles of Prayer Book Revision
The cardinal principles of all Prayer Book revisions were laid down in the Preface of the English 1662 Book and quoted in the Preface of our American Book:
1. "It hath been the wisdom of the Church...to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting any variation from her Public Liturgy;
2. "It is but reasonable, that upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as to those that are in place of Authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient.
3. "Yet so, as that the main Body and Essentials of it (as well in the chiefest materials, as in the frame and order thereof) have still continued the same unto this day, and do yet stand firm and unshaken."
The 1789 Preface of the American Prayer Book justified the adoption of a different rit:: from that of the Church of England by restating these principles: "It is a most invaluable part of that blessed 'liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free', that in his worship different forms and usages may without offence be allowed, provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire; and that, in every Church, what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine must be referred to Discipline; and therefore, by common consent and authority, may be altered, abridged, enlarged, amended, or otherwise disposed of, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the people, 'according to the various exigency of times and occasions.'"
Perhaps the chief change in our present proposals for Prayer Book revision lies in the acceptance of alternative rites with considerable flexibility within each to lengthen, shorten, or enrich, provided the basic structure and frame are maintained. This is not a new departure in Prayer Book revision: it received acceptance in our American Book of 1892 and was extended "in the Prayer Book of 1928. What is. really new is the possibility of expressing this flexibility in different styles of language, so that alternatives are now provided in contemporary language and not solely in that of the sixteenth century. The Episcopal Church has already adopted the principle of linguistic variety by canonical provision for the use of various modern translations of the Bible in its corporate worship, as well as by the inclusion of modern hymns in its Hymnal. Is it reasonable that in her prayers the Church must not only retain but compel the use of a vernacular no longer spoken by the people as a sine qua non of the liturgy?
We have for at least a century accepted variations of ceremonial and music in our churches. Is it any longer reasonable to deny such variety in ritual texts, provided that theological integrity and balance in the newer forms is maintained? Contemporary English should not be thought of as identical with colloquial English. But it is curious to suppose that there is any more irreverence in addressing God by the modern familiar "You" than by the archaic familiar "Thou."
We must accept the fact that the Age of Uniformity is over, whether by acts of Parliament or by canons of General Convention. Uniformity in worship was an integral aspect of a period of absolute monarchies, both secular and ecclesiastical, when conformity to prescribed words and actions was regarded as the test of a subject's loyalty to kings and popes. The end of the Age of Uniformity corresponds to the end of all explicit or implicit political establishment of the Church in modern society. After sixteen centuries since the time of Constantine, the Church is once again placed on a level with the dispossessed and the powerless. It is freed once again to witness and worship with "the poor in spirit" who look for the Kingdom of God not in the trappings of worldly influence, but in the knowledge of the mysterious transformation of all things "after the likeness of Christ." The worship of the Church must now be renewed to express to the faithful the certain hope of the glory that is yet to be revealed. Revision of the liturgy is not a device to attract the alienated, whether young or old, but a means whereby the remnant of the faithful committed disciples may expose themselves to the love of Christ that strengthens us in all things.
The Commission's proposals for a Prayer Book that includes alternative services in varied styles of expression and inner combinations are not meant to pose to the Church a choice of one among many possibilities. Quite the contrary, it is the conviction of the Commission that this variety is necessary and viable in the many condition: and circumstances in which the Church must celebrate in this day the mystery of her redemption. We do not wish the Church to decide between traditional any contemporary styles, but to accept both as valid and useful means for the "exigency of times and occasions." We believe that to try to enforce a return to the older ideal of uniformity will alienate both those who prefer customary and those who prefer more innovative modes of praise and prayer in common worship. In liturgy as in all other aspects of the Church's corporate life, we need to "forbear one another in love" (Ephesians 4:2; cf. Colossians 3:13).
It is important to note that we are not doing this work in a corner. We are working in the mainstream of an ecumenical endeavor that embraces all Anglican Churches, and our brothers and sisters of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Lutheran and other Protestant Communions of the Western world, and the younger and maturing Churches of the "third world." This is an unprecedented experience of give and take, sharing and complementing. For all of us realise that Christianity is today moving in a difficult but exciting transition in its mission and corporate life in relation to the world it is called to serve. We cannot understand Prayer Book revision apart from this vast context of historical development.
Theological Reflection
One of the greatest fruits of the modern ecumenical movement has been the growing synthesis, from biblical, historical, and theological study and dialogue, of a unitive principle in Christian worship. This is the recovery and restoration of the Paschal Mystery-- the one, all-embracing sacrament of our death and resurrection in Christ and our incorporation into his Body by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is only one fundamental sacrament, the Easter mystery, but there are many and diverse sacramental expressions and experiences of it. Into this mystery we are initiated once for all, in penitence and faith, and given the promise of being joint- heirs with Christ as adoptive sons of the Father. In this new life, pointing to the age to come, we are continually renewed and strengthened by the Holy Eucharist, and more especially in the Sunday gathering of the faithful that recalls to us Creation, Resurrection, Pentecost, and the final Day of the Lord, all in one. Every rite of the Church, however ordered liturgically and pastorally, points to this Mystery and derives its meaning and power from it.
The proposed rites of Holy Baptism and Bishop's Visitation (Drafts of Sept., 1972) are an honest attempt to restore the unity and integrity of the Paschal Mystery in simplicity and dignity, both for those being initiated, whatever their age, and for those who have already been initiated, who therein renew their solemn vows and convenant. The several rites of the Holy Eucharist are also ways of renewing this covenant by hearing the Word of God, by acts of penitence and intercession, by giving the "peace of the Lord", and by self- offering in thanksgiving and dedication. The Daily Offices are our continual reminder of the Mystery, especially in joining with our Lord in his prayer book, the Psalms, as expression both of our hope and our fulfillment.
(It is interesting to note that the Synod Committee on Doctrine and Worship of the Anglican Church of Canada, with which the Standing Liturgical Commission has established close working relations, has arrived quite independently at the same theological position, and is now engaged in preparing separate rites for Holy Baptism and for what they aptly call A Rite of Covenant Renewal. It is also encouraging to know that the trial rites for the Ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons are widely used in the Canadian Church.)
Other occasional offices do the same. The marriage rite is a publicly witnessed covenant between two persons who promise "until... parted by death" to show forth the mystery of the love of Christ for his Church. The ministrations to the sick and to the dying are expressions of the healing power of the Mystery, whether in life or in death, to keep us for ever in the bond of reconciliation and peace. And the burial rites are celebrations of the final seal of that which was sealed to us mystically and by promise in our baptism into the Mystery.
There can be no renewal of worship in the Church, whatever the changes in liturgical forms, until the Church recovers in all her rites the glory and the sure promise of the Paschal Mystery.
Prospects
The Commission's proposed timetable for completing its task is given above, pages 2 and 3, and the Commission earnestly hopes that the House of Bishops will receive it with sympathy and understanding. A good deal of unfinished business remains to be completed: revision of the initiatory rites; a lectionary for the Daily Office; the publication of 79 Psalms, most of which have already been translated; a brief Catechism which may also be used as Offices of Instruction; new alternatives to the forms of Consecration of a Church or Chapel, and Institution of Ministers; and, in addition, the revisions of trial services authorised in 1970, in the light of comments and suggestions from diocesan liturgical committees and consultants. A handsome collection of Prayers, Thanksgivings, and Litanies (Prayer Book Studies 25) is even now going to press.
All of this material will be ready before the 1973 General Convention in Louisville. It deserves to be given solid and critical appraisal in situations of actual worship, before it is put together as a proposed Revised Book of Common Prayer. For this, one more triennium of trial use is indispensable. An extension of trial use will also give worshipers the opportunity, which many of them have not had so far, of becoming acquainted with the material being offered to the Church; and it will also give more time to remove misunderstandings and misconceptions about the constitutional safeguards in the process of Prayer Book revision.
We are aware of all the annoyances and inconveniences of so many ephemeral books and texts for experimentation. Yet worship remains the primary and indispensable work of the Church, and we should not be hasty about getting its renewal done. Above all, the Commission feels strongly that it would be dangerous to the integrity of both the present and a future Prayer Book were a policy of piece-meal revision to be adopted. If a first constitutional approval is given to, say, the Eucharistic rites, while other rites remain in trial use, then the second constitutional approval of the Eucharistic rites would make them the official liturgy of the Church, replacing the Order of Holy Communion in the present Prayer Book. But then, the question would arise, what of the status of the present Prayer Book? One or two sections of it would no longer be authorized; yet other parts of it would continue to be the official forms of the Church's worship.
The Commission considers that to take a shortcut out of the present admittedly trying period of trial use by way of piece-meal adoption of some of the services, but not of others, would create far worse confusion than is now supposed to exist.
On the other hand, to rush into a proposed Book services now in preparation, without subjecting them to adequate trial use, would be a failure to keep faith with the promise made to the Church. That promise is in the invitation to all Church members to participate in the process of Prayer Book revision by contributing their comments and suggestions, and in the assurance given them that their comments will be taken into account in the preparation of a final text.
The Commission strongly urges that the Church continue to follow steadfastly the course she embarked upon when she accepted the principle of Church-wide participation of her members in the process of Prayer Book revision. A wide measure of inter-communication within the Church has developed. Many of those who were initially suspicious are now beginning to understand that their views will be heard. It would be a great loss to cut short, or to cut off altogether,.'this process of communication about the one function of the Church which is' of the essence of her life-- the worship of God the Father, through the Son, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Our immediate task is to provide the best Book of Common Prayer that we can devise, by God's help, and one that serves the needs and aspirations of the whole Church.
End-notes:
1.Journal of the General Convention, 1964, pp. 348-349.
2. Ibid., pp. 260-262.
3.Journal of the General Convention, 1967, pp. 334-335, 458, 480-482. Appendix 23.3 - 23.9.
4.Ibid. pp. 458-460, Appendix 23.9 - 23.11.
5. The only exceptions to the Convention's approval were certain modifications in the initiatory rite (Baptism with the Laying-on-of-Hands), mainly to the effect that only Bishops could officiate in the laying on of hands, and that no children "under the present age normal for confirmation" could receive the laying on of hands during the trial use period. Journal of the General Convention 1970, pp. 330- 331, 342-351. See also Services for Trial Use, p. 21.
6. Journal of the Special General Convention, 1969, pp. 112, 233-234, 331-335.