The decision of the 1994 General Convention directing the Standing Liturgical Commission to prepare a rationale and plan for the next revision of the Book of Common Prayer has encouraged the Diocese of Newark to participate actively in the process.

By resolution of our diocesan convention in January, Bishop John Spong appointed a task force "to study the theological issues that should be considered in the next revision of the prayer book, to report in two years to our diocesan convention, and ultimately to communicate the results of its work to the SLC before the next General Convention."

The intent of this grassroots task force of laity and clergy is for us to be included in the revision process and the attending debate. It is our hope that other dioceses will do likewise.

The Episcopal Women's Caucus has led the way in pressing for inclusive language in our church's liturgies. This is the major need which our task force recognizes for prayer book revision but with an expanded scope: We believe our worship should be intentionally inclusive both of the worshipers and of the God in whom we believe. Inclusive language for the first issue concerns principally the nouns and pronouns we use in liturgy to refer to the worshipers and to the God we worship. The second involves the verbs that are used, particularly their moods and tenses.

The exigencies of 16th-century England that initially prompted the 1549 BCP were largely political correctness and inclusive language (English in place of Latin). The language usage deemed inclusive then, and which is largely used in our prayer books since, was determined by the predisposition of the common world view of that era - male-oriented, Anglo-Saxon, politically autocratic, and clergy controlled - which is or ought to be no longer the case today.

For our prayer book to be common to people as we enter the 21st century, the nouns and pronouns, titles and terms used should be inclusive of gender, of people of color (cf. the association of darkness with evil), of sexual orientation and of scientific and political realities. Because of the timing of the revision process that produced the 1979 BCP, these issues were largely unaddressed as they were arising coincidentally.

The second and long overdue need for revision is for the language of our worship to be inclusive of the God to Whom we are called to witness both in our corporate worship and personal life. This is a call for the revision of the verbs used in the prayer book relative to the God revealed in Jesus.

With the predominant use of the subjunctive and imperative moods of the verbs in our current prayers and salutations (inherited from preReformation theology), are we not perceived as wishing for or asking for what we believe our God has already done, is doing, or has willed to be done? To what god are we actually bearing witness with such language? Might we not be perceived to be like the 450 hapless prophets of Baal who besought their god vainly on Mount Carmel to hear them, all the while rejecting the God of Elijah whom they beheld to have acted quite indicatively?

At worst, the verb forms, both in mood and tense, of our present usage deny and exclude the God of grace revealed in Jesus Christ. What bears true and awesome witness to our God and the good news? Is it our familiar subjunctive well-wishing as commonly perceived in "The Lord be with you" and imperative pleading as in "Lord, have mercy" and "Lord, hear our prayer"? Or would an indicative proclamation such as "The Lord is with you!" and affirmative thanksgiving such as "We thank you Lord" bear more faithful testimony to Christ?

The difference is between popular "Hallmark card theology" (e.g. "May God's peace be with you...") which, though well-meaning, does not send "the very best" message about God and the gospel of God's grace that was claimed unequivocally and proclaimed boldly and indicatively by the early church as exemplified in the Easter epistle, Colossians 3:1-4.

At best, the verbs regarding God's work of redemption are patently inconsistent and contradictory. One poignant illustration is in our public testimony to the Resurrection. At the Easter Vigil we thankfully attest that in baptism we are buried with Christ in his death, by it we share in his Resurrection, through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit. And again we declare that God has bestowed on the baptized the forgiveness of sin and has raised us to the new life of grace. Then on Easter Day, with the collect we implore God to grant that we may be raised from the death of sin. This is followed directly by the Easter epistle that states, "If then you have been raised with Christ ..." Again on Easter Tuesday the collect indicatively avers that we have been raised with Christ.

This is but one of many of the theological contradictions both within the prayer book itself and between the prayer book and scripture. It points to the need to examine carefully the verbs we use and reform them to be inclusive of the God who has indicatively redeemed us and to be intentional in our testimony to God as eucharistic people, the body of Christ, whose awe-filled hearts have great cause to be lifted up with thanksgiving. The New Zealand BCP and portions of the baptismal liturgy in the 1979 BCP express this and provide encouraging examples for the continued revision of our prayer book.

Does then our prayer book need to be revised? And what about the hymnal? That depends for whom our books for worship are to be common and to what god or God we believe we are called to worship and to bear witness. These are basic issues that profoundly affect our church's primary mission in the decades to come and have moved the Diocese of Newark to be engaged actively in raising them up in the revision process. We look forward to other dioceses participating in this work in furthering our church's intentional proclamation of the good news revealed in Jesus Christ to all people. o