Deputies vote to begin process to revise Book of Common Prayer

By Melodie Woerman
Posted Jul 7, 2018

[Episcopal News Service – Austin, Texas] The House of Deputies on July 7 adopted a resolution that would set the stage for the revision of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

The outcome of Resolution A068 was decided in a vote by orders, with each diocese casting one ballot for its lay and one ballot for its clergy deputies. To prevail, the resolution needed 56 yes votes in the lay and in the clergy orders.

The House of Deputies passed Resolution A068, to begin a process of prayer book revision, in a vote by orders on July 7. Photo: Melodie Woerman/Episcopal News Service

The results:
* Clergy: 63 yes, 30 no, 17 divided (the deputies were split 50-50)
* Lay: 69 yes, 26 no, 15 divided

The resolution now goes to the House of Bishops for its consideration.

The resolution adopts a process recommended by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, or SCLM, which from now until 2021 will gather data about how the current 1979 prayer book is being used in congregations across the Episcopal Church, with a focus group meeting in every diocese and a variety of consultations.

The resolution directs that any future revision will “utilize inclusive and expansive language and imagery for humanity and divinity” and will “incorporate and express understanding, appreciation, and care of God’s creation.”

The Rev. Matthew Mead, a New York deputy, offers an amendment during debate on July 7. Photo: Mary Frances Schjonberg/Episcopal News Service

Additional guidance for the process was included in floor amendments, which deputies presented on July 7, after having debated the basic resolution the day before. The amendments direct that elements of prayer book revision be faithful to the historic rites as expressed in the Anglican tradition, while making space for rites that might arise from the working of the Holy Spirit. It also is to take into account the church’s “liturgical, cultural, racial, generational, linguistic, gender, physical ability, and ethnic diversity,” while adhering to the four elements identified by Anglicans as the essentials for Christian unity: scripture, the creeds, the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, and the historic episcopate.

Because of concerns that have arisen during the convention about the availability of materials for non-English-speaking deputies, the resolution calls for materials generated in the next three years to be available in English, Spanish, French and Haitian Creole – the primary languages spoken by people in the 17 countries of the Episcopal Church.

In the process set out by the SCLM, a revised Book of Common Prayer will be created by 2024, with three years of trial use after that. Final adoption of that revision by two successive General Conventions would result in a new prayer book in 2030.

[perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Full ENS coverage of the 79th meeting of General Convention is available here.[/perfectpullquote]

Deputies debated the resolution for an hour on July 6, with speakers alternating between those supporting and those opposing.

The Rev. Jane Johnson, deputy from Fond du Lac, said that since human beings, in all their diversity, are made in the image of God, then the church must move away from an image of God that is white and male. “God’s pronouns are them and their, not he,” she said.

The Rev. James Sorvillo, deputy from Central Florida, said he thought the money planned for the overall revision process, estimated at $8 million over 12 years, could be better spent on providing Spanish language materials for Puerto Ricans now living in his area.

Chicago Deputy Louisa McKellaston said that all human beings are made in God’s image, “but that is not reflected in our Book of Common Prayer.” She said she is concerned that exclusive language in the prayer book is unwelcoming and alienating to both members and seekers.

The Rev. Everett Lees, deputy from Oklahoma, said that while he understands the need for more expansive liturgical language, now is not the time to address it. Noting that Presiding Bishop Michael Curry now is frequently appearing on television, “people are coming to look for us.” He said revision “will draw us from the important work of evangelism.”

— Melodie Woerman is director of communications for the Diocese of Kansas and is a member of the ENS General Convention reporting team.

A previous version of this story reversed the vote totals.

Tags

Comments (129)

  1. J. Harold A. BOYD says:
    July 10, 2018 at 6:37 pm

    For those of us who lived through the 1970’s re-write of the BCP felt we were repeating that mess again. There are some of us who would still wish we were using the 1928 BCP.

    1. Matt Ouellette says:
      July 10, 2018 at 11:09 pm

      Rite I still has a lot of material from the 1928, though, right?

      1. Frank Harrision says:
        July 12, 2018 at 7:40 am

        Rite I is said to be the continuation with the 1928 Pray Book. I would prefer t use the phrase “shadow of it.” Even so, the following is merely a guess for I have taken no surveys, it is Rite II that is most commonly used in the “main” services on Sundays Rite I being deligated usually to 8:00 am.

        1. Darryl Grant says:
          July 12, 2018 at 4:01 pm

          Yes, you are mostly correct. The 1928 Prayer Book offers a different sacramental and personal theology — ergo the Prayer of Humble Access. Yes, we Rite I lovers are generally scheduled at the 8:00 a.m. and/or 8: 30 a.m. slot! Where we can do no harm!

  2. Frank Harrision says:
    July 11, 2018 at 9:32 am

    Here is a suggestion concerning prayer book revision, etc. If one is seeking beauty in worship, let us return to using the 1928 Prayer Book and the King Jame’s version of the Bible. I was brought up in the Episcopal Church with both. Many will find such a suggestion absurd, and they may well have a point. Even so — just a thought, a suggestion even.

  3. Frank Harrison says:
    July 11, 2018 at 12:44 pm

    It is well to remember that in a trinitarian view “God” does NOT refer to the Father. “God” refers to the entire Trinity of which there is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Admittedly there is a GREAT DEAL to say about the theology of the Trinity. But, it is best not to confuse the whole (God) with a “part” (the Father). Peace be with you this day….

  4. Frank Harrison says:
    July 11, 2018 at 12:51 pm

    There is a great deal of the use of the word “love” in church discussions these days. This word is both highly ambiguous and vague. Indeed, outside of a more-or-less specific (theological) context it has little meaning other than that of the emotional rhetorical sort. That being said, some of you might want to read AMOR DEI by John Burnaby. This gives necessary context to “love” within the theological views of St. Augustine.

  5. Beverley Freiley says:
    July 12, 2018 at 12:59 am

    As a 76 year old cradle Episcopalian, I feel that my church has left me. Changing the beautiful language of the prayer book is just another example of the political correctness and radical views espoused by so many who are now in control. My only hope is that if the prayer book is eventually revised, I’ll die before it is finally introduced!

    1. Frank Harrision says:
      July 12, 2018 at 7:35 am

      I am older than you AND on “your page” with you.

      1. David Schreyer says:
        July 12, 2018 at 1:02 pm

        I’m close to 60 and I AM WITH John Hobart all the way. I plan on ignoring the new and staying with the best choice between the 1929 BCP and the 1979 BCP. I have the 1979 edition. I like it a whole lot. I am even going out to “dig up” the 1929 edition to see what the fuss is all about. Sure the language is archaic in 1929. They still used the KJV Bible then too. #MaleGenderPhobics

    2. Darryl Grant says:
      July 12, 2018 at 4:04 pm

      To help keep the conversation in perspective — the great-grandmother of a friend of mine was shocked at the 1928 Prayer Book; not quite seen as heretical, but her preference was the one she used in 1894. In all seriousness, this brings up a lot of valuable input that I hope will be listened to!

  6. David Schreyer says:
    July 12, 2018 at 12:59 pm

    I’m not a cradle Episcopalian but I must say there is a new word being developed to describe it all…those who want to “gender-neutralize” the BCP are now called “male-gender phobics” who suffer from malegenderphobia. I’ll be in my grave when this disaster takes hold. The church has started the process of writing it’s expiration date….2030. This whole issue was a House of Deputies creation and the Bishops had to take control by setting the proper path. I am a conservative Episcopalian and proud of it. TEC is going to change itself out of business. The Anglicans are spending money on new missions along the British Coast. We’re spending money on a plan to close our Church for good. Maybe an invitation to the Archbishop of Canterbury is in order to see if the “true” Anglicans in America and can go back under their umbrella.

  7. Terri Hoornstra says:
    July 12, 2018 at 1:13 pm

    Okay, I am a woman. As a young girl, I remember asking my mom why some nouns that should have applied to both males and females bore the pronoun “he”. She explained (correctly) that “he” is the default pronoun applying to humans. You have a choice of he, she or it/they/them (most inhuman sounding). So I managed to survive my childhood not feeling oppressed by pronouns. As I went on to study Latin, German, French and my own language more intensively, I realized that gender often is separate from reference to a female or male human being. In English, we have ships — and the church itself — that are “she/her”. For someone to feel “excluded” by male “default” pronouns, that they are somehow intentionally used to oppress or marginalize women they, in the words of Rogers and Hammerstein, “have to be carefully taught”. And for me, the fact that Jesus uses a male paradigm for God, his “heavenly father” is more than enough for me to accept it, deal with it, and get past it go on to examine his real teachings. I truly have sympathy for someone who has been misguidedly sensitized against male pronouns, but not enough to support going to the great lengths and expense of a prayer book revision to make them feel more comfortable.

  8. Rev. Jerry R. Lyle says:
    July 12, 2018 at 8:59 pm

    After reading the comments above, which is a minute sample of comments flying around, reveals to me and I pray others, that the reasoning for this proposal is not clear, and very volatile. To the novice person in the pews, most have no understanding of what this proposal is really doing. For my simple two cents, it is going to cause a tremendous amount of divisiveness among our church. For the life of me, it makes zero sense. If you are going to propose a change, do so with clarity or not at all. This close to taking a vote with the amount of harsh feelings already says it should not go forward. I would hope this would be voted down for the time being.

  9. Frank Harrision says:
    July 13, 2018 at 1:10 pm

    For those truly interested in Prayer Book revision, here is a great article to read:

    http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/Deceived.html

    pax —

  10. Frank Harrision says:
    July 13, 2018 at 3:32 pm

    For those interested in Pray Book revisions, here is an insightful article to read:

    http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/Deceived.html

    Pax —

  11. Frank Harrision says:
    July 13, 2018 at 3:39 pm

    For any of you interested in Prayer Book revision and some of its history, do read this article.

    http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/Deceived.html

    pax

  12. Jerry Egel says:
    July 15, 2018 at 12:34 pm

    If this comes to fruition, it will be my
    #WalkAway moment.

  13. Frank Harrison says:
    July 15, 2018 at 1:08 pm

    Again, let me remind y’all to read this link:

    http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/Deceived.html

    Much of the revision process was sneaky, under the table introducing many tears into the Episcopal Church. Let us not have that happen again.

    I hope that you had a safe trip home —

Comments are closed.