Prayer Book Revision

[CanadianAnglican]

http://livingchurch.org/greener-prayer-book

This Article on The Living Church caught my eye, and in particular this comment: "[The Rev. Ruth Meyers] described the Nicene Creed as “a stumbling block for many,” and wondered if a creed is necessary during the Eucharist, given the Great Thanksgiving’s robust affirmation of God’s work in Christ. The use of modern creedal texts alongside the Nicene Creed might be a creative opportunity for engaging worshipers."

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. If the Creed is no longer viewed as necessary, and indeed is a hindrance to faith, what exactly does that faith look like?

 

[seeking.IAM]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. If the Creed is no longer viewed as necessary, and indeed is a hindrance to faith, what exactly does that faith look like?

If the church abandons the creed the faith begins to look like something that is sort of like Christianity but not quite Christianity at all. May God deliver us from theologians who think they have a better idea than the historical faith.

 

[Obedientiarius]

If you'll permit me to comment as a Lutheran full-communion partner. The ELCA's liturgy, although enshrined in a particular hymnal with an 'official' liturgy, is also adjusted more gradually over time via Sundays and Seasons, an online resource most congregations subscribe to since the role of our liturgy is not nearly as robust as in your churches. Some of what I read in this article is already underway in ELCA churches. The Creed during Holy Communion (Lutherans use Nicene and Apostles' at the Eucharist) is beginning to be replaced by more benign affirmations of faith, although currently only in a minority of congregations from what I can tell. Our version of what the BCP calls the Prayers of the People is not standardized at all to allow local adaptation, but what I've seen come through Sundays and Seasons often includes strong ecological language described in this article. The other part of our liturgy that is evolving mostly behind the scenes is the penitential rite at the beginning of the liturgy (we have confession and absolution at the beginning, not after the Prayers). The liturgy in our hymnal is quite good, but the versions getting used by churches that use S&S are wandering further and further from what anyone would traditionally understand as a confession of sin and absolution. I may just be acting fussy, but our liturgical masters are taking us away from both the historic Western rite and the Reformation. May your liturgical development be more thoughtful.

 

[Albion]

If the church abandons the creed the faith begins to look like something that is sort of like Christianity but not quite Christianity at all. May God deliver us from theologians who think they have a better idea than the historical faith.

That's a good way of addressing the problem. Another is to point out that the BCP was effectively done away with by the 1979 book, despite the retention of the title of the publication.

At the time, it was said that replacing the historic book that had so well united Anglicans and Episcopalians of all varieties, this "second most beautiful book in the English language," with a grab-bag of toned-down alternative prayers and responses would lead to more of the same. That prediction has apparently come true.

 

[Simon Crosby]

That's a good way of addressing the problem. Another is to point out that the BCP was effectively done away with by the 1979 book, despite the retention of the title of the publication.

At the time, it was said that replacing the historic book that had so well united Anglicans and Episcopalians of all varieties, this "second most beautiful book in the English language," with a grab-bag of toned-down alternative prayers and responses would lead to more of the same. That prediction has apparently come true.

Some of the content in the 1979 American book was not that bad, I liked the idea of the Phos Hilarion as an optional canticle, and I like the idea of multiple anaphorae. The problem is mainly the implementation.

The new American book sounds dreadful, however.

 

[graceandpeace]

I've thought a lot about this, & I'm admittedly conflicted.

One the one hand, I think the Creed is a traditional unifying element to the liturgy. It's a profession of Christian beliefs. I like reciting it.

On the other hand, I can see how some of the language might be alienating or confusing to some members. I question whether the Creed needs to be an absolute, required piece.

The one thing I would be most opposed to is altering the language of the Creed. Either keep it, or make it optional in the liturgy, but no tampering.

Nothing else in the article is problematic for me.

 

[SteveCaruso]

If the Creed is no longer viewed as necessary, and indeed is a hindrance to faith, what exactly does that faith look like?

If the Creed goes by the wayside, it's not Christianity. The Creed is the yardstick of orthodox Christian practice.

However, I am thankful that only a small sliver of folks are moving in that direction.

Presiding Bishop Curry often says he wants to see the whole church reciting the Creed without anyone crossing their fingers behind their back, so as long as he's in that position, I don't see the Creed being cut.

 

[Simon Crosby]

If the Creed goes by the wayside, it's not Christianity. The Creed is the yardstick of orthodox Christian practice.

However, I am thankful that only a small sliver of folks are moving in that direction.

Presiding Bishop Curry often says he wants to see the whole church reciting the Creed without anyone crossing their fingers behind their back, so as long as he's in that position, I don't see the Creed being cut.

I could not agree more.

 

[Simon Crosby]

I've thought a lot about this, & I'm admittedly conflicted.

One the one hand, I think the Creed is a traditional unifying element to the liturgy. It's a profession of Christian beliefs. I like reciting it.

On the other hand, I can see how some of the language might be alienating or confusing to some members. I question whether the Creed needs to be an absolute, required piece.

The one thing I would be most opposed to is altering the language of the Creed. Either keep it, or make it optional in the liturgy, but no tampering.

Nothing else in the article is problematic for me.

A creed, definitionally, will be alienating. The Nicene Creed was specifically composed, as you might recall, to alienate Arius and his followers. As Anglicans, we have become entirely too uncomfortable with the idea of alienating people, but I fear the impending reality is that our church might become so broad as to dissipate into the aether.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Christianity always has an always will be counter-cultural so long as society's culture remains rooted in non-Christian values and philosophies. Christ has always called us to change to conform to him, and the creed is a fundamental statement of things we must necessarily believe. If someone is uncomfortable professing the creed, the solution is catechesis, not changing Christian doctrines to be more acceptable to a non-Christian.

 

[graceandpeace]

A creed, definitionally, will be alienating. The Nicene Creed was specifically composed, as you might recall, to alienate Arius and his followers. As Anglicans, we have become entirely too uncomfortable with the idea of alienating people, but I fear the impending reality is that our church might become so broad as to dissipate into the aether.

Sure.

My only point is that I can understand where others are coming from. I also understand that Christianity pre-dates the Nicene Creed.

 

[Albion]

FWIW, the reason the Creed was in the liturgy of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer is because it was in the Roman liturgy. However, the Creed was only introduced into the liturgy during the late 4th century.

 

[Simon Crosby]

Sure.

My only point is that I can understand where others are coming from. I also understand that Christianity pre-dates the Nicene Creed.

FWIW, the reason the Creed was in the liturgy of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer is because it was in the Roman liturgy. However, the Creed was only introduced into the liturgy during the late 4th century.

There was an important reason why it was introduced, and that was owing to Arianism. In a time when the Trinitarian doctrine is under the most sustained assault at any point since the late fourth century, since the reign of Theodosius, I believe that to even consider removing it is madness. Furthermore, if someone objects to the Nicene Creed, we also have the Apostles Creed.

Although I would support a rubric limiting the Apostles Creed to Mattins and Evensong.

 

[Albion]

I'm not in favor of removing it, but really, this is an issue in another church body anyway and it's therefore somewhat hypothetical for me. However, it's not as though the suggestion is for the Creed to be rejected, eliminated, or replaced; the issue is only whether or not it ought to be recited during the liturgy.

 

[Simon Crosby]

I'm not in favor of removing it, but really, this is an issue in another church body anyway and it's therefore somewhat hypothetical for me. However, it's not as though the suggestion is for the Creed to be rejected, eliminated, or replaced; the issue is only whether or not it ought to be recited during the liturgy.

Alright, fair enough, I see where you were coming from in your previous reply. I myself am not a member of the Episcopal Church, but I feel I should put in my oar on this matter because unfortunately what they do has a trndency to happen here at a later date.

Now, to address this reply, I think we have to remember the liturgical quality of Anglicanism, "lex orandi, lex credendi." If the Creed is not recited liturgically, we have essentislly done away with it and have ceased to be Anglican.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Simon, don't forget one of the other reasons it was not written down until the early 4th century is that while the Church remained under Roman persecution, it was very difficult--if not impossible--to call a proper ecumenical council to address these issues.

The fact that the Creed was not set down until the 4th century does not in any way remove from its authority or truth. The Canon of Holy Scripture as we (essentially) receive it today dates from the same period. While the authority of the Bible is sadly today under attack, it's generally not because the Canon wasn't settled until that point but rather because the Scriptures are inconvenient and old and their inspiration is attacked, etc.

Albion, I would also disagree with you that this isn't a movement to replace the Creed. While I'll admit that the exact words used suggest what you are saying (it wont be replaced or rejected), let's see what the practical implications are:

It is a stumbling block for many: There are parts of the Nicene Creed which Episcopalians do not wish to profess and it would be a salve to their "faith" if they were not required to cross their fingers and recite it or refrain from reciting it during the Eucharist. Okay, fair enough, but again if you cannot profess an element of the Nicene Creed (setting aside the filioque controversy) then you cannot profess Christianity. The solution here is to identify the people having issues, identify the issues they are having and discuss those problems with them until they are able to accept the Truth professed in the Creed.

Not necessary during the Eucharist due to the Great Thanksgiving's robust affirmation of God's work in Christ: again, referring back to the previous point, this suggests that there are statements made in the Creed, but not made in other parts of the liturgy, that people struggle to accept. Rather than trying to teach why the Creed is to be believed, the solution being presented is to no longer require those beliefs to be professed regardless of their normative value to Christians throughout time.

The use of modern creedal texts alongside the Nicene Creed might be a creative opportunity for engaging worshipers: Now this can be taken in several ways. I see it not as suggesting you would recite the Nicene Creed and then a "modern creedal text" but rather they will provide options, saying you can recite one of the traditional creeds or one of these new affirmations of faith. This is exactly what has happened in the Anglican Church of Canada when the Liturgy task force tried to replace the Apostle's Creed in Morning and Evening Prayer with a new "Affirmation of Faith" they felt more accurately spoke to modern people who might struggle with the Apostle's Creed. It was thoroughly rejected by the people and they dropped it from their revisions, but again I see this as being part of the same process. You list an "alternative" affirmation of face and then it becomes normative for many despite the fact that it no longer speaks to the fullness of the Christian faith. Assuming TEC is still around in a few generations, what it means to be a Christian to someone in TEC is as far from traditional Christianity as unitarian universalism is from Christianity today.

So I'll admit if I hadn't made it clear already, I am not part of TEC, but on a different scale (this was the liturgy task force's own initiative and not something discussed at general synod or approved there, and it was dropped in the face of massive backlash) it's something that I'm seeing here and I worry very much what the results would be. I see it very much, to put it bluntly, as a dumbing down of the faith in order to make Christianity palatable. But that results in basically making it a secular happy-clappy feely-goody-feelyness place where you go to meet up with others, told what a wonderful person you are, that there is a God, but don't worry he loves you as you are, doesn't call you to change or offer you grace to transform you (because it would suggest you needed to change or be transformed) and that really you should just be a nice person and be good to everyone (you get to decide what being good to others means, though you can often look to the prevailing societal views for that).

 

[SteveCaruso]

Also don't forget that the Creed itself is not just a matter of what it does contain -- i.e. what is orthodox practice -- but what it doesn't. There is a lot of "wiggleroom" in the Creed by design and it allows for a lot of differences of opinion. Agreement on essentials, tolerance on everything else.

If the essentials begin to be transformed into "optionals," then "Christianity" -- as it has been understood for nearly 2,000 years) ceases to be a definable group and instead turns into a loose association of people who may or may not believe any particular thing or not about Jesus of Nazareth who we all call Christ but don't agree on what that means...

...if that illustration isn't too vague enough.

What then is "Anglican" can similarly be eaten into in the same way with large changes to liturgical formulae -- I'm not just talking about updating words, but actually removing portions, sequences, and formulae that make our liturgy distinctly Anglican -- which is a fine line to walk.

 

[graceandpeace]

I agree that better instruction needs to be available for converts & long-time members. I think this is an issue that is not limited to one particular denomination.

However, many average lay persons don't care or have already made up their minds on specific issues. We are now in a time where information is readily available at the touch of a button. The issue is much bigger than just whether a church recites the Creed every Sunday.

If the Creed were removed from the liturgy, would that be a problem? I think for the average Episcopalian/Anglican across the spectrum, I think it would be a problem. It's just an ingrained part of our tradition, & I would say for many it's an important part of our catholic identity.

Is removing the Creed from the liturgy tantamount to saying the tenets are no longer believed or taught? If a denomination doesn't use the Creed at all, are they not considered Christians? I'm not willing to say yes to either of those questions. I know others might feel differently.

I think I've sufficiently given my opinion now, so I will just leave it at that.

 

[Albion]

Now, to address this reply, I think we have to remember the liturgical quality of Anglicanism, "lex orandi, lex credendi." If the Creed is not recited liturgically, we have essentislly done away with it and have ceased to be Anglican.

I'm not sure that I'm convinced. If we have to recite a list of all the beliefs we hold, during every worship service, doing so would require much more than simply reciting the Nicene Creed, after all.

 

[Simon Crosby]

I'm not sure that I'm convinced. If we have to recite a list of all the beliefs we hold, during every worship service, doing so would require much more than simply reciting the Nicene Creed, after all.

The other beliefs come out in the propers and gospel lessons and the ordinary of the services themselves.

I think you did just make a very good argument however against the neglect of Mattins and the Litany which plagues our communion.