Liturgical Development

[everbecoming2007]

I have relocated for the time being to another state where I am doing a new job, so I'm worshiping in a new parish. The parish offers only Rite II services. I've only been to the Sunday service which is fairly high church as was my last parish at least in the main service.

My primary context for worship has been Rite I performed in a high manner. For the last few years my main service has been a low church 1928 (American) BCP service. I've been equally comfortable with both Rite I from the '79 prayer book and the 1928 service.

Now generally I am most comfortable in conservative liturgies, and I am attached to the traditional language of the 1928 prayer book. On the other hand, while the psalms, the Office, and the 1928 prayer book have been a primary source of devotion, I do not limit myself strictly to that. I also pray spontaneously, and I write my own prayers and tend to use a very similar style of language as that found in the traditional prayer books.

That said, I am comfortable with my affiliation with the ECUSA, and liturgically we are diverse, and I accept that within reasonable limits. I don't approve of everything going on liturgically, but I accept a certain amount of diversity. I am not suited psychologically or spiritually to any other tradition. This being the tradition I'm working in, I have to give way to the practice of the church at least to some degree and accept it for what it is. I know other Anglicans here might have different sentiments about that.

I didn't find anything objectionable in the liturgy I am now attending, and it was conducted in a dignified, reverent manner as are my liturgies back home. I do notice a different theological emphasis. However, I will have to absorb this liturgy more fully through experience before I can comment too much on that. I do think there is less of an emphasis on sin, and I can see that innovation argued for or against in various ways.

I would like to ask others to comment on their experiences with diverse liturgy within Anglicanism. We talk a lot about high church verses low church, but I am interested in what differences you note between more modern and traditional liturgies and why you value one over another, or perhaps you find yourself accepting both styles.

Furthermore, if you do embrace and are more accustomed to the modern liturgies for aesthetic, theological, or other reasons, why is that?

Traditional liturgies are sometimes criticized as inadequate. I personally have not found them to be so in my overall experience. But that leads me to my next question: are there parts of these modern liturgies you find inadequate? What sorts of liturgical developments would you like to see occur?

Any other comments and observations are welcome.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I have been in several Anglican settings, and I tend to put aside my worship preferences for all the other amazing things that church offers, such as home groups and mission opportunities.

I tend to think that worship isn’t about me, IYSWIM.

 

[Albion]

For myself, it has always been the 1928 BCP, but I know what the content of the 1979 book is and agree with the Continuing Anglican objection to it, namely that it sanitizes man's standing with God in favor of an emphasis upon the idea that God loves us and so on and so on.

Why the drafters of the document couldn't have modernized the language (which I do not think needs to be modernized at all, but people say that) without going as far as they did, I don't know. They did not make it well-known at the time that changing the message was the real intention. I feel sorry for people like yourself who will have to deal with a newer revision in the near future. That one could be a doozy.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I prefer Rite II right out of the BCP 1979. I'm like a fish out of water at my church's earlier Rite I service. That said I try to adjust as best I can when there.

I do get cranky when a "progressive" priest starts fiddling with the language, and I am near an apoplexy if some priest thinks s/he can write a catchier version of our Lord's Prayer than Jesus did. I've stumbled into that sometimes when visiting other churches and I greatly disliked it.

You could be like Jim, my old pewmate I happened to sit next to my first Sunday in the parish. Jim came to Anglicanism when in England during WWII. Jim never felt bound to do Rite II, no matter what the rest of us were saying, Jim was saying COE prayers from 1945. What Jim was saying in my right ear confused me at first but I came to be amused by it. I miss Jim. God rest his soul. I'm going to be like Jim.

 

[everbecoming2007]

I prefer Rite II right out of the BCP 1979. I'm like a fish out of water at my church's earlier Rite I service. That said I try to adjust as best I can when there.

I do get cranky when a "progressive" priest starts fiddling with the language, and I am near an apoplexy if some priest thinks s/he can write a catchier version of our Lord's Prayer than Jesus did. I've stumbled into that sometimes when visiting other churches and I greatly disliked it.

You could be like Jim, my old pewmate I happened to sit next to my first Sunday in the parish. Jim came to Anglicanism when in England during WWII. Jim never felt bound to do Rite II, no matter what the rest of us were saying, Jim was saying COE prayers from 1945. What Jim was saying in my right ear confused me at first but I came to be amused by it. I miss Jim. God rest his soul. I'm going to be like Jim.

I find myself saying some of the responses in the traditional language just because that's what I'm used to and have memorized.

 

[Paidiske]

Am I right in thinking that Rite I is basically BCP in more modern English, whereas Rite II has different structure, language and emphases?

I came into the church in the late 90s, in Australia, and so the BCP or an updated-English version of it has never been my primary worship diet. I have been to and appreciated those liturgies from time to time, but they haven't provided my Christian (or Anglican) formation.

I do think that what I find in the newer liturgies (NB: I am talking primarily about Australian liturgies, although I'm aware that similar trends are reflected internationally) is a higher view of human beings; as loved by God; as having dignity and value, being made in the image of God, and so on. Not that sin and repentance are absent, but that they are not the dominant motif. I appreciate that positive and encouraging aspect of the newer liturgies, for myself and my congregation. There also seems to me to be more emphasis on community (rather than individual Christianity) and on mission as the essential activity of all Christians. Those things resonate well with me.

I find the older liturgies tend to be negative, dreary and stilted with overly formal or archaic language.

There are definitely things in the newer liturgies that I don't love. I'd like to take an editor's pen to parts of our baptismal and funeral rites, in particular. Sometimes there seems to have been the thought that we have to say everything we possibly can and cram in as much truth as the rite can carry; but I think people tune out and it reaches a point of diminishing return.

I think the big change that needs to happen is we need to stop expecting words to do all the work for us. For centuries Anglican liturgies have been distilled into words on pages in prayer books, but now we're confronted with questions like, "How does a non-verbal person with autism pray?" How do we allow liturgy to be formative for people whose primary mode of learning is not auditory-linguistic? And so on. How we use symbols and objects and visual stimuli and movement and all of those things do, I think, need to come back much more to the forefront rather than being optional extras.

That's just my two cents', though. Ymmv.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Am I right in thinking that Rite I is basically BCP in more modern English, whereas Rite II has different structure, language and emphases?

I came into the church in the late 90s, in Australia, and so the BCP or an updated-English version of it has never been my primary worship diet. I have been to and appreciated those liturgies from time to time, but they haven't provided my Christian (or Anglican) formation.

I do think that what I find in the newer liturgies (NB: I am talking primarily about Australian liturgies, although I'm aware that similar trends are reflected internationally) is a higher view of human beings; as loved by God; as having dignity and value, being made in the image of God, and so on. Not that sin and repentance are absent, but that they are not the dominant motif. I appreciate that positive and encouraging aspect of the newer liturgies, for myself and my congregation. There also seems to me to be more emphasis on community (rather than individual Christianity) and on mission as the essential activity of all Christians. Those things resonate well with me.

I find the older liturgies tend to be negative, dreary and stilted with overly formal or archaic language.

There are definitely things in the newer liturgies that I don't love. I'd like to take an editor's pen to parts of our baptismal and funeral rites, in particular. Sometimes there seems to have been the thought that we have to say everything we possibly can and cram in as much truth as the rite can carry; but I think people tune out and it reaches a point of diminishing return.

I think the big change that needs to happen is we need to stop expecting words to do all the work for us. For centuries Anglican liturgies have been distilled into words on pages in prayer books, but now we're confronted with questions like, "How does a non-verbal person with autism pray?" How do we allow liturgy to be formative for people whose primary mode of learning is not auditory-linguistic? And so on. How we use symbols and objects and visual stimuli and movement and all of those things do, I think, need to come back much more to the forefront rather than being optional extras.

That's just my two cents', though. Ymmv.

Rite I may have slightly updated language, but it is still in traditional liturgical language, and I find it comforting, but I became familiar with the Authorized Version of the Bible at a young age as a child, and it is still my source of devotion along with the prayer book. I do appreciate your points about how different people, especially autistic people and others, encounter the liturgy.

I know that I am very sensitive to how liturgy is performed. I am also introverted and get very stressed if a church is too overwhelming on welcoming me. As someone diagnosed as OCD among other things I can be traumatized by a badly performed liturgy.

 

[seeking.IAM]

In BCP, Rite One is formal language. Rite Two is modern language. Some would argue the two rites have different theological emphasis as well. For example...

Rite One:
Celebrant: The Lord be with you
People: And with thy Spirit.

Rite Two:
Celebrant: The Lord be with you
People: And also with you.

 

[Shane R]

Believe it or not: I have attended Rite II Communion services a handful of times. I thought the Rite itself was quite impoverished. I also observed a tendency to mimic American Evangelicalism in plugging tons of music into the service anytime I've seen Rite II served.

And yet, I am not wed to the old language. The Anglican scholar Peter Toon did some modest updates to the BCP many years ago that, to my knowledge, have never been adopted by any major Anglican body. We have to re-invent the wheel it seems. All Toon did was remove the archaisms and modernize the syntax of a given line or paragraph. As Albion pointed out, many of the Prayer Book committees have been interested in affecting doctrinal shifts with their work.

I butt heads with old bulls all the time who think it is somehow superior to worship with archaic language. Okay: get a Latin or Greek Missal. But that is a bridge too far. In America, whatever you think of immigration and open borders and all that, the facts on the ground are that perhaps 20-25% of the population do not speak English at home. Those who make an attempt to speak it in public are usually confused by the traditional BCPs. And most Americans who have graduated High School in the last decade can't make sense of it either. I always hear either: oh, well, if they're learning English why not teach them Prayer Book English at the same time; or; they can have their own churches! Well, maybe that's why your church has 15 members and is going to fail in the next decade: you aren't even trying to work with the people in your community.

 

[Paidiske]

So are your Rite I and Rite II substantially the same structure, just with different wording? Or are they actually structured differently?

 

[Shane R]

So are your Rite I and Rite II substantially the same structure, just with different wording? Or are they actually structured differently?

It depends who you ask. Hardliners in the continuing Anglican movement will say Rite I was a clever ploy to introduce heresy while tricking people into thinking they were saying the same prayers they always have. More moderate voices will claim Rite I only modestly differs from its predecessor in the 1928 BCP.

Rite II can be whatever you want it to be but whatever else it is: it is significantly abbreviated. What I meant by the first statement is, there are many places in the Rite where the celebrant is given the option to say a particular prayer, or not. That service could be done in 25 minutes in its most stripped down form.

But Continuing Anglicans celebrate according to the 1928 (or in rare cases 1662, or even 1549) BCP or the American Missal. Those are the texts I was trained in.

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm. I'm not sure if I'm being clear.

With our 1995 book, there are three orders for holy communion. And they don't just have different words in what are intended to be basically the same prayers, or options to use or not use things; they're actually quite different in how the liturgy is structured. Things like where confession and absolution occurs, or how the Great Thanksgiving is put together, and so on.

It sounds as if the differences in the modern American books are more modest?

 

[Shane R]

Rite I is a modest edit of its fore-runners. If you could imagine the 1662 Rite being tinkered with by Anglo-Catholics and the Gloria in Excelsis being kicked to the end of the service, you'd be tracking with Rite I. Rite II is shorter and strips away large chunks of the service if done in it's most basic form. But, the prayers that coincide with Rite I will be in essentially the same place, should they be said. I had a '79 BCP but I think my sister in law hauled it off when she ransacked my late wife's belongings, probably not realizing what it was. . . So I'm going partially from memory here.

But last year I was sent to consult with some ACNA folk who were aiming to switch from the '79 American to the '28 American. So I studied up back then.

 

[Paidiske]

Ah. Our revisions were much more comprehensive, then.

 

[Shane R]

It seems like the tendency in N. America has been to issue whatever you wanted to pray but didn't know if you had the votes for at a GC as an Alternative Service Book.

 

[Paidiske]

We haven't done that so much. For a while there, there was a lot of using resources from overseas, especially the British Common Worship stuff, but recently my archbishop in particular has clamped down on that and stopped giving permission.

Which is very frustrating...

 

[Shane R]

My Archbishop is very lenient, IF YOU ASK. He will give permission for most anything 1963 or prior (which is a year after when the Canadians last released an actual BCP and TEC released the first edition of "Lesser Feasts and Fasts"). At least occasionally, not necessarily as weekly Sunday fare.

He is actually somewhat lenient. He will approve a parish to read the LCMS lectionary (a 3 year cycle). And he will approve readings from a few Bibles other than the KJV. If you had regular dealings with continuing Anglicans, you would realize some of that is 'radical' - small steps.

 

[Paidiske]

Our archbishop used to be quite open (if you asked). But since he's become primate he's become much less so. Something about upholding the agreed liturgies etc etc. Sigh.

 

[Albion]

Am I right in thinking that Rite I is basically BCP in more modern English, whereas Rite II has different structure, language and emphases?

I came into the church in the late 90s, in Australia, and so the BCP or an updated-English version of it has never been my primary worship diet. I have been to and appreciated those liturgies from time to time, but they haven't provided my Christian (or Anglican) formation.

I do think that what I find in the newer liturgies (NB: I am talking primarily about Australian liturgies, although I'm aware that similar trends are reflected internationally) is a higher view of human beings; as loved by God; as having dignity and value, being made in the image of God, and so on. Not that sin and repentance are absent, but that they are not the dominant motif. I appreciate that positive and encouraging aspect of the newer liturgies, for myself and my congregation. There also seems to me to be more emphasis on community (rather than individual Christianity) and on mission as the essential activity of all Christians. Those things resonate well with me.

I find the older liturgies tend to be negative, dreary and stilted with overly formal or archaic language.

There are definitely things in the newer liturgies that I don't love. I'd like to take an editor's pen to parts of our baptismal and funeral rites, in particular. Sometimes there seems to have been the thought that we have to say everything we possibly can and cram in as much truth as the rite can carry; but I think people tune out and it reaches a point of diminishing return.

I think the big change that needs to happen is we need to stop expecting words to do all the work for us. For centuries Anglican liturgies have been distilled into words on pages in prayer books, but now we're confronted with questions like, "How does a non-verbal person with autism pray?" How do we allow liturgy to be formative for people whose primary mode of learning is not auditory-linguistic? And so on. How we use symbols and objects and visual stimuli and movement and all of those things do, I think, need to come back much more to the forefront rather than being optional extras.

That's just my two cents', though. Ymmv.

One would think that if the idea of the revisers was to offer more choices, the historic BCP would have been allowed for those parishes that wanted to continue its use. But after the bishops promised to allow that, they then progressively restricted the choice until this was prohibited for all intents and purposes. I know of one parish, a small one made up of mainly elderly people, that found a way around the restrictions. It was to host a special salute to some historic milestone in Anglican history on some given Sunday in which the old version of the liturgy was used along with a sermon appropriate to the occasion, plus some additional adornments or costumes from the Nineteenth Century or whatever so to prove that the purpose was not simply to use the forbidden book.

In time they were holding, I thought, quite a few (!) such commemorations, but isn't this just a lamentable end for these faithful members and worshippers?Ironically, I also know a Methodist church that uses a liturgy--streamlined, of course--that retains more of the wording of the historic BCP than that of the nearby Episcopal Church.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...I also know a Methodist church that uses a liturgy--streamlined, of course--that retains more of the wording of the historic BCP than that of the nearby Episcopal Church.

Such a UMC would be nearly as rare as a unicorn. I'm glad I didn't come across one or I still might be UMC.