Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music will present options to General Convention on possible prayer book revision

Posted Dec 6, 2016

[Episcopal Church Office of Public Affairs press release] The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) plans to present the 2018 General Convention with four options regarding the possible revision of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, said the Rev. Devon Anderson, commission chair.

The options, discussed in detail on the SCLM’s blog, are:

  • Revision of the prayer book beginning after the 2018 General Convention;
  • Creation of a book or books of alternative services beginning after the 2018 General Convention, with no accompanying revision of the prayer book;
  • A postponement of the decision on the prayer book and supplemental resources until the completion of a church-wide conversation on liturgical theology and practice during the 2018-2021 triennium
  • A step back from liturgical revision and a commitment to exploring the theology of the current prayer book in greater depth.

“We want to give General Convention everything it needs to give the SCLM very detailed direction and sufficient funding to follow that direction,” Anderson said. “We want to call the church to a collective discernment that leads to a decision.”

Resolution A169 of the 2015 General Convention directed the SCLM “to prepare a plan for the comprehensive revision of the current Book of Common Prayer and present that plan to the 79th General Convention.”

The commission is taking a data-driven approach to its work, and hopes to use several methods of gathering the information and opinions that will shape its conversations, Anderson said.

These methods include collecting and analyzing bulletins to gauge current practice in the church; interviewing Anglican partners who have recently revised their prayer books; holding small group discussions about the prayer book across the church, beginning at the 2018 General Convention; and sponsoring conferences on the prayer book at Virginia Theological Seminary and the School of Theology at Sewanee, the University of the South.

These methods can be tested in the next two years and deployed church-wide between the conventions in 2018 and 2021, Anderson said.

The commission is also hoping to commission a church-wide research project in cooperation with the Church Pension Group to determine Episcopalians’ current attitudes towards the prayer book. The study would follow “grounded theory” methodology, which seeks data not to confirm a previously conceived theory, but to find testable theories within the information gathered.

Anderson said data gathering is an essential step if either prayer book revision or the creation of supplemental liturgical resources is to proceed.  “The Book of Common Prayer is the fullest statement of our faith, and the deepest expression of our theology,” she said. “If we are going to revise it, it is essential that people from across the church can share their thoughts, their anxieties and their hopes with us. That is why we are focusing, at this point, on hearing the voices of our people.”

The SCLM blog also includes updates from subcommittees working on the Book of Occasional Services, the Calendar of Commemorations, congregational song, and liturgical resources that speak to issues of racial injustice and reconciliation.

 


Tags


Comments (78)

  1. Stephen W. Houghton says:

    What delay? more than a hundred years is the typical period between prayer books.

  2. James Calabro says:

    “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If those interested in making changes to the Prayer Book are adamant, know there are scores of people who are not interested in doing so. Are we past the point in society where we can assist each other and find some compromise?

    Must we completely do away with the present Prayer Book? There is still so much in the book I have yet to see and experience. I would like some outward expression of the faith that Christ brought to this Earth. While the Prayer Book cannot and should not be frozen in time, what was valued and good in the past can still be valuable to us today.

    Why can we not have a Prayer Book that is outside the bounds of much of our political and economic discourse in our country? It belongs to no one and is yet available to all. I hope it doesn’t become a political football for one side or the other.

    Is a Prayer Book revision really what the Episcopal Church needs to be focusing on? Does the current Prayer Book reflect what our faith is? If not, then why was it adopted in the first place? If it does, then is a complete overhaul needed?

  3. Nicholas Cuccia says:

    I wasn’t an Episcopalian when the last revision took place. But I was happy to find a Church in the late ‘80s that believed that revelation is still ongoing (at least the Episcopalians I happened upon believed this). As a Christian who’s not a theologian I know that theology is reflected in words and actions. As a former journalist/editor, I believe it’s important to on occasion to examine the words we use to represent our reality. So I have no problem with an examination of the Prayer Book. The crucial issue, to me, is are we being moved by the Holy Spirit as we discover new truths — not fads — in our time? As someone who cringes at some — not all — of the Message and Egalitarian translations of Scripture, I understand the trepidation of those who resist a wholesale revision. But we have to have the confidence to go through a process of examination and then decide we’re going to do what is necessary to change or not change. Because it is quite possible to go through that process and find that no, we don’t need to do anything, or we need to tweak or add a few things. It can be an additive, expansive process no matter the outcome but it doesn’t have to be out of fear.

    1. Nicholas Cuccia says:

      Every editor needs an editor: “it’s important on occasion to examine ….”

  4. Brian Jones says:

    Several contributors to this conversation have suggested that the decline in membership of TEC will be accelerated by a change in the BCP. But isn’t it equally possible that our decline, or lack of growth, is in fact a result of our reluctance to adapt? I think this is certainly the case with the Hymnal. Many excellent new hymns have been written since 1982. I am not talking about praise-church music; I am talking about theologically sound songs in the hymnic tradition. If you doubt such music exists, take a look at the most recent revision of the Lutheran Book of Worship. It’s full of excellent hymns written in the last 30 years.
    The General Convention voted to begin the work of revision of both the Hymnal and the BCP. The vote for both actions was strong. If one wishes to slow down the forces of change, one should speak to his or her convention delegates–or become one! The SCLM has been commissioned to design a process leading to revision of the BCP, not to survey the entire church to find out if everyone wants a revision. Options two and three seem to honor the BCP resolution that was adopted. Option one is precipitous and seems to commit the committee to an impossible pace of revision. Option four seems to reflect the wishes of those who want little or no change, which contradicts the will of the convention.
    It is inevitable that this revision will go slowly. There is much to be done, and trial liturgies will need to be written and digested over a period of years. Analyzing the theology of the BCP has been an ongoing task among church theologians and historians for many years; a new initiative to do more of this analysis will have a body of reflection already available. Some who have posted seem to think the theological work will only now begin. This is simply not the case.
    Finally, change is inevitable. Heraclitus said “Everything flows.” He was right. No language, no culture stands still. Many words have dropped out of common usage; many words have been added to our language. I mourn some of the losses; I deplore some of the additions. But there is much or the new that is good that we would do well to consider, and there is much of the old that is simply unrecognizable to the upcoming generations. The church cannot communicate credibly if it is speaking the language of a past age. Theological thinking has not stood still in our time, nor has it in any age. New is not necessarily heretical or bad; the old is not necessarily unsurpassable, or even very good. Hymnic modes and styles have changed. The period between the last revisions of the BCP and the Hymnal has seen unusually rapid change. A specific number of years (100?!) is not a useful measure for determining when it is time for revision. The need for revision must be discerned from close study of the changes that have taken place. I think the New Zealand church produced a marvelous prayerbook. Has this revision caused decline in New Zealand? Might be worth checking. It looks to me like mission is alive and well in the Anglican Church in New Zealand, to judge from their website. Maybe their new prayerbook has revitalized their church. We should check. I am glad the SCLM is reaching out to other parts of the communion to gather their experience and advice.
    If we move forward with grace and wisdom, we need not repeat the past. The process will not inevitably mirror the conflict of the 1979 revision. We can do better than we did last time. I hope we can believe that and move forward with trust and charity.

  5. Sarah L Weedon says:

    How about calling it a minor update and fixing some of the language and doing a bit of addition. For example, adding EOW as acceptable for main service. Updating language in Nicene Creed to Jesus became incarnate by the Virgin Mary and was made human.. And the Holy Spirit as either gender neutral or female ( We believe in the Holy Spirit , the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified and has spoken through the prophets. )
    All of the above is the practice in many churches already and does not change the essence of the BCP. There is more that can be done to poetically correct some gender language now that “man” and “he” are no longer used for mankind and limit our expanding understanding of God (See Gail Ranshaw for elegant ways of doing that. )

  6. The Rev. Deon Johnson says:

    I find it rather interesting that we can generate so much ink (pixels) and energy over the possibility of considering the future revision of the Book of Common Prayer. I wonder if the replies and reposts would be as numerous if the General Convention had asked the church to consider reaching out to our neighbors food, clothing, shelter or a safe space to gather.

    The Book of Common Prayer is not the be all and end all of who we are as Episcopalians or as followers of Jesus. The 1979 Prayer Book has its beauty and its flaws, a serious reconsideration of the theology, language and liturgies of our faith that allows us to more actively engage our sisters and brothers in Christ out in the world is a good thing in my book.

  7. John McCann says:

    I think that the “rush” to revise the 1979 Prayer Book, is because so many want to “do their own thing”,and a rush to so-ca;;ed “contemporary worship”– I say if thats your top priorty, go to a mega church, you can have a rock concert with prayers and maybe sacraments. Maybe there is a panic, as the church is losing members. I agree with thbose who have stated that it is too soon to revise the Prayer Book, less than 40 years ago. Seems like the various Anglican churches are kinda wandering off on their own….

    1. Richard McClellan says:

      Exactly. Cannot stomach what I call the “yippy skippy” Jesus music a la the mega-church craze.

  8. I would love more gender-inclusive language. I don’t care how it comes about!

  9. susan zimmerman says:

    “…the conversation is definitely needed…and can’t believe that someone mentioned theology, since the teaching ministry of our church is GONE…and Jesus was in the temple daily ‘teaching’ DA?”

    Do the good looking ‘worship’ leaders know any Greek and Hebrew any longer…can they even conjugate the verb To Be… bulletins don’t demonstrate that they can? And Jesus was in the temple daily worshiping…nope!

  10. PJcabbiness says:

    Since the Episcopal Church has rejected the authority of scripture and instead embraced post modern relativism and heresy, why don’t we follow this line of fuzzy thinking to it’s logical conclusion and allow each individual to create their own prayer book? There is no need for a book of common prayer where there is no objective truth or authority. In a theological environment free of sin and judgment, we could simply reaffirm ourselves and modify the creeds to reflect a God created in our image. Our church has rejected a divinely revealed faith and has replaced it with a counterfeit, man-made mythology.

  11. Charles Grover, Retired Priest says:

    It struck me that the amazing number of responses to this story indicates how deeply all of this touches us. My confidence in Grace and God is such that I trust that whatever way we continue to struggle through all this will leave us better.

  12. James Calabro says:

    Please don’t rush into a prayer book revision! Please don’t forget the lessons of 1979. Please don’t disenfranchise those who desire little to no change, or changes that are contrary to the will of the House of Deputies and House of Bishops. Is it not possible for the Church to develop prayers and rites that are not only gender-neutral but refined and beautiful?

    Who is the Church trying to attract by changes to the Prayer Book? Must the Church abandon its past completely in order to attract…who? If a change to the Prayer Book brings more people to Church and creates a better world, I’m all for it. However, what does it mean for someone to abandon their history and identity in order to satisfy the demands of the world, especially those who may be looking for a church that is confident in its identity and its history. Are we really too scared to continue with the 1979 prayer book? Is it so inflexible that it truly requires a complete overhaul?

    Can’t it also be possible that other prayers and offices be inspired by those from Prayer Books within the Communion, like Common Worship from the CoE? What about prayers and offices modified from those Christian bodies not in communion with TEC, like the ACNA, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox Church, or the Lutherans? Do they have nothing to teach us? Are they also not valid expressions of the God’s love to the world?

  13. James Edward Calabro says:

    Please don’t rush into a prayer book revision! Please don’t forget the lessons of 1979. Please don’t disenfranchise those who desire little to no change, or changes that are contrary to the will of the House of Deputies and House of Bishops. Is it not possible for the Church to develop prayers and rites that are not only gender-neutral but refined and beautiful?

    Who is the Church trying to attract by changes to the Prayer Book? Must the Church abandon its past completely in order to attract…who? If a change to the Prayer Book brings more people to Church and creates a better world, I’m all for it. However, what does it mean for someone to abandon their history and identity in order to satisfy the demands of the world, especially those who may be looking for a church that is confident in its identity and its history. Are we really too scared to continue with the 1979 prayer book? Is it so inflexible that it truly requires a complete overhaul?

    Can’t it also be possible that other prayers and offices be inspired by those from Prayer Books within the Communion, like Common Worship from the CoE? What about prayers and offices modified from those Christian bodies not in communion with TEC, like the ACNA, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox Church, or the Lutherans? Do they have nothing to teach us? Are they also not valid expressions of the God’s love to the world?

  14. Doug Desper says:

    If we do anything we should revise the Hymnal. I’m an organist and I appreciate the depth of our current Hymnal, however, it is a very niche, boutique work. We are a country of over 300 million people of which our Church is nearly microscopic with about 680,000 showing up on Sunday. ONE reason is music. Not every parish is Westminster Abbey with the need for heaping helpings of plainsong, or professional level hymnody, or frankly un-singable tunes married to obscure texts. More than 1/2 of our parishes do not have full time clergy or paid musicians, and I wonder how many have regular choirs or music leaders. If our Church is to revive we need to give the music BACK to the people – make a book for the voices in the pew. Of course, keep our Anglican heritage, but also get with it to join the American culture. Lift Every Voice and Sing should be represented in a new Hymnal with “hymns of the heart” like “Trust and Obey”, “My Hope Is Built”, “Great Is Thy Faithfulness” and others that are widely seen in most American hymnals…..except ours. We have the wonderful duty to join and help to shape the American religious culture and we are not doing it in our hymnody. And when we make the new book take a clue from the Methodists. Their 1989 Hymnal was designed to be taller with more legible print, not only for the older members, but for everyone. It still fits in the standard pew rack. Prayer Book? Leave it be! We can use supplemental services from Occasional Services. We do not need to enshrine any “new” marriage theology quite so fast in a new edition of the Prayer Book. We haven’t reached that point, and it will be quite some time before we do despite General Convention’s workings. What works in officialdom is quite something else when it is being considered in a church of 60 or less.

  15. Doug Desper says:

    “WTF Confirmation is….”? How uncalled for from a member of the clergy!

    1. Richard McClellan says:

      Confirmation is the rite at which a baptized person, especially one baptized as an infant, affirms Christian belief and is admitted as a full member of the church and a Bishop should be the only one to administer the rite. Blessings.

  16. John E. Roach says:

    Well, will we end up like the C of E where everyone does the alternative mix and match forms? I have been told one has trouble finding congregation whose worship life is formed by BCP and not the missal or the new alternative forms. As for me, TEC’s” Paul VI BCP” is a better situation than that. If TEC decides to push new music and new worship and perhaps dump traditional language options, I might heed the advice of MD Bp Eastman who said (whilst Rector at St Albans) let those who don’t like it leave. Perhaps several million did. There are people out there doing 1928!
    A life’s experience can attest that no one leaves well enough alone.

  17. Brian Jones says:

    As I read this string of comments, I hear again and again fear and discontent based on assumptions of questionable validity. I think it is unhelpful to project the intentions and motives of those who want to revise the Hymnal and the BCP without actually having listened to what they have in mind. For example, several writers assume that revision of the Hymnal will involve abandoning traditional hymnody and substituting praise church music. There may be a few who want this, but I think the vast majority of those seeking change want a revision that includes the musically and lyrically excellent hymns written in the past few decades. I have to wonder if those who fear that a new hymnal will represent a move toward banal and repetitive praise music have any acquaintance with the large body of hymns written since the last hymnal revision. It’s hardly persuasive to assert that a revision will degrade what we now have if one has little knowledge of the large body of recently composed hymns we might consider adding. I strongly encourage those who have little exposure to new hymnody to sit down with a musician who can introduce them to the treasures of the present time. I teach at an ELCA institution, and I regularly sing from the new Lutheran hymnal, Evangelical Lutheran Worship. I am mightily impressed with the beauty and theological depth of many of the new hymns included in ELW. The college students who sing alongside me love the new hymns, but I have seen them struggle with the language of the older hymns. They simply do not know many of the words in the older hymns. Some words are dying out of our language, which is the normal state of affairs in any language. Sure, we can stand and defend our old vocabulary and demand that the newly arrived learn our lingo, but I don’t think this is a winning strategy. I sure doesn’t work in the classroom.
    Other assumptions about the revision of the BCP need to be examined. Some assume that any revision will lead to heterodoxy, if not heresy. This is not necessarily true. Perhaps revision will lead to more beautiful and profound expressions of our core beliefs. Maybe we will find ways of articulating the same truths in language that communicates more effectively to a broad range of people from differing levels of education. The suggestion that any revision will lead to deterioration in our theology and worship, and that the church will speedily decline as a result of this is an assumption that needs examination.
    I hope we can have enough faith in the Spirit’s leading and in one another to consider with open minds the revision of the Hymnal and BCP. If we can discern together in genuine conversation and good will–maybe even charity!–we may find that we are closer to agreeing with one another than our fears tell us.

  18. Mark Levi says:

    There are many people who joined the Episcopal church for the Rite I mass. In the Commonwealth, you still have the 1662 BCP (very close to Rite I) service in use, which is the most traditional and reassuring of them all. The amount of time necessary to revise the prayer book and spent fighting over it would be better spent reaching out to agnostics and ex-Christians in missionary efforts.

  19. Ann G. Gerns says:

    I truly appreciate the 1979 PB revision. There are so many good things in it: Holy Communion every Sunday, for starters, the revised Baptism liturgy that requires participation of the congregation, the words of the Rite III Communion (I call “Star Wars” rite) which I love.
    The biggest (?only) need that I see is a 3-year cycle of psalms and collects to reflect the 3-yr. cycle of the Common Lectionary. Perhaps there are other items, but I’m not educated enough to know what they are.
    It seems as though the committee is proceeding carefully and thoughtfully. Let’s let them continue.

  20. David Jameson says:

    About time. There are few reactionary hold-outs left, but this should drive the remainder out. Time we fully get on the right side of history!

Comments are closed.